Bishop Mathes, I hear what you are saying but I disagree with how you are saying it. Your post veers uncomfortably (for me) toward "tone argument" and seems to ignore some crucial context that is relevant to the issue.

You seem to me to be risking the dismissal of valid concerns and disagreements entirely because they weren't made in the "right" tone and in the correct form of deference to recognized authority. I may be very wrong but that's my reaction after meditating and contemplating and rereading your post several times.

As a Episcopal bishop you are speaking from a position of great power and authority in the church. By focusing on the "tone" of language of the people who are not bishops and how they engage in blog discussions there is a great risk, at least perceived, of dismissing the voices of those with less or no power, especially of those who come from cultural places that have a different way of communicating and responding that you seem to be labeling as unChristian.

The first two comments posted here at the Cafe in response to Bishop Little's pastoral letter were overflowing with high praise and commending him for his great pastoral care.

Many of the following responses were disagreeing with the idea that Bishop Little had done anything praiseworthy at all and arguing that they saw nothing pastoral in his approach.

If you disagree with that argument why raise the issue of tone? Why not say so directly and leave it at that? In my culture loud, strong, emotional communication is the norm. Apparently that is not the same for you.

It is one thing to call for what you see as a "more" Christian way of responding in order to make the church look better and, one may presume, be better, and quite another to question critics by suggesting that they are using an inappropriate tone or language that you find inappropriate when speaking truth to power.

This may not be the way bishops discourse but it certainly is the may modern Americans and many diverse cultures discourse. It is also common, as you point out, in public discourse regarding politics, sports, and in many other situations.

It is very different from the deferential way that communicants spoke to bishops in the past, isn't it? Quite uncivil, less learned, and more egalitarian. Is that part of the problem here, I wonder?

Bishop Little's decision has real-world consequences on many people and the only forum for many, if not most, of those affected is to react to his decision on blog discussion boards, perhaps letters to a church newspaper, or in private conversations.

Or they could just remain silent and make personal choices about whether interacting with bishops of the church at all is a worthwhile endeavor, especially if their own cultural norms are considered bad form.

I find your posting very troubling in that you speak from a position of power yourself and seek to urge the adoption of rules of engagement and for commentary and discussion that appeal to you but you don't appear to seek or explore how those rules may or may not appeal to others from different cultural backgrounds and who possess little or no power.

You have many venues where you can engage in "peaceful discourse and transformation" with others who share your cultural background, privilege, and power and who know the "rules" of engagement and the accepted norms of discourse.

Those who come from different backgrounds, some marginalized, may engage and discourse in very different ways that are culturally alien to you in the only places they find available.

I believe that you mean well and truly desire a more Christian approach in Episcopal blogging and more "heavenly" discourse. Perhaps a good start would be to start asking questions and seeking to understand cultural and social communication differences instead of making tone pronouncements?

Thanks Priscilla - you put into words what I was thinking. Perhaps, Bishop Mathes you might try the simulation exercise developed by Kathy Tyler Scott - called blues and greens. Within minutes of beginning you will see the behaviors evoked that you don't want to see. In the simulation some are blues and there is a blue leader - they ignore and marginalize the greens in a scenario called "let's dream of the perfect church" -- greens are ignored, or sent out to get coffee, and never addressed personally -- quickly 3 behaviors emerge - loud rude speech, withdrawal, or trying to draw some blues into the green camp (if that happens - the blues start ignoring that person too). Start looking for why people might be acting out - rather than telling them if they only had better manners all would be well. The "issue" of marriage equality - is not just an interesting item of discussion -- it is peoples' loves and lives. Of course there will be passionate speech and perhaps some that goes over your line of civility.

In both reading Bishop Mathes' article and the first two reactions to it, I am struck by the immediacy of the desire to tear down the ideas of anyone who is percieved to be in power, without listening to see if they are making a valid request or arguement. Nowhere in the article do I read where Bishop Mathes is attempting to marginalize the views of "dissenters" or any others. What I read in this is simply a request that we all come to the same table when it comes to discussions. It is clear that those who feel, deeply, that they are somehow marginalized or voiceless are not willing to engage in a dialog wherein they are asked to speak without derogatory or angry words. Yet they are the first to walk away offended if those whom they perceive to have "power" attempt to speak to them in the same way - they must be spoken to in soft, even tones with no inflammatory, derogatory, or angry words in response.

What I hear Bishop Mathes saying in this article is, essentially, that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Be impassioned, express your views, but also be prepared to engage in civil discourse when those on the "other side" have the same impassioned response.

Please be aware of your own reactions to people whom you see as speaking from positions of power. I have my suspicions that for at least some of the commenters, they are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of this discussion because it was raised by a Bishop instead of a lay person. This is exactly the type of thing that this article is seeking to address. Do not dismiss the request to act out our call to "be in the world, not of the world" simply because it appears to be coming from an authority you resent.

Machelle May Christiansen (added by ~ed.)

I don't think Bishop Mathes is unaware of the justice issues or the passions on either side. But TEC has decided that it will not force blessings on anyone. So we all have to live in this together. How do we do that ?

Over at Friends of Jake's, we discussed this at some length, juxtaposing it with the event at Skyline Church in San Diego where vehement evangelical opponents to marriage invited supporters to a staged, but polite event.

Rather than re-hash what I I wrote, please see the post, MaY I sit here with you?

I will only quote one thing I said there:

I am quite sure there are people (and it seems Bishop Little is one) who agonize over this issue but can’t in good conscience move forward. I happen to think they are wrong, but I can, indeed I MUST respect their conviction firmly held, as long as they do not engage in lies and hate. I must work to educate them, not vilify them. I must keep the conversation open.
....

Susan Forsburg

I'm all in with the good bishop's call for civil discourse, but we cannot ignore the point Ms Cardinale makes: Bishop Little has all of the power in No Indiana, and he can do as he chooses with respect to the new trial liturgy. How is it a significant compromise to authorize clergy to travel to another diocese for a blessing? It is bad enough that the Democratic Party platform is ahead of our Episcopal Church in promoting real marriage equality, but this half-hearted policy deserves praise? If a bishop is truly elected for the whole church, then how is an approved liturgy only appropriate in some dioceses and not others? I'm certain that no one would expect Bishop Little to preside at an event he finds himself unable to support, but our current arrangement feels a lot like the C of E's dilemma over authorizing limited jurisdiction of female bishops. It just doesn't make sense to have a red church/ blue church, to paraphrase a now-disillusioned President we all know.

John Donnelly

The problem with the position the Bishop of Northern Indiana took is that he punted rather than making a decision. He made arrangements with other area bishops to allow same-sex couples from Northern Indiana to go elsewhere to get trial blessings. He set up a separate and unequal system. Moreover, the trial blessings are far from religious marriage equality. What will he do if General Convention ever allowed same-sex couples to marry in church? He has prevented his parishes from moving ahead with with recognizing same-sex couples and their families. Why would LGBTs want to join a denomination in which their very existence is controversial?

The so-called civil tone of the episcopate sometimes recalls the way Episcopalians used to brag that they were the only denomination which did not split over the issue of slavery.

Compromise over doctrine is possible because doctrines are unprovable, whereas compromise over whether every member of the club deserves to have the same responsibilities and benefits as every other member is totally unacceptable.

Refusing church recognition for same-sex couples helps to continue to support discriminatory state laws which deny thousands of rights and protections to same-sex couples. Indiana has a constitutional amendment outlawing both civil unions and marriage equality. A separate and unequal system also encourages violence against LGBTs.

The episcopate for centuries excluded women and LGBTS and is only now beginning to include some. Its theology represents the experiences of white straight men and is not universal.

Deep conviction and prejudice are structurally similar to the extent that facts about same-sex couples and their families will not sway the bishop. Whether Bishop Little intended to discriminate or not is less important than that the effect of his decision is to discriminate against a particular category of people.

Those who have been negatively impacted by the decision are the only ones who should have the right to try to excuse or forgive a person who is responsible for such discrimination within the church. The Bishop of San Diego has no right to tell the victims how they should feel or how they should discuss their experience of victimization because he has not been negatively impacted by Bishop Little's punting.

Also, why the strange delay in the response to the discussion about Northern Indiana? It might have been productive at the time for the Bishop of San Diego to write while people were having the discussion rather than after-the-fact.

This is a missed encounter.

Gary Paul Gilbert

I read Bishop Mathes’s post early this morning and really appreciated it and was surprised to see some of this afternoons comments.

Often times I have read Episcopal Café or other Episcopal blogs and been really disheartened by the tone of the conversations and the things people on both sides of issues choose to say in order to express there opinions on a variety of issues including same-sex blessings, young adults, budget issues etc. Many times after reading the comments I can’t help but feel frustrated and angry with some of the people in the church because of their lack of respect and graciousness for others. I’ve never commented on Episcopal Café before and part of the reason is because it feels like by commenting, I am preparing for battle. That I need to make sure my skin is thick enough to handle the hurtful tone and language that might be directed at my comment…this is hardly the welcoming, inclusive feeling our church promotes.

The first commenter said “In my culture loud, strong, emotional communication is the norm. Apparently that is not the same for you.” While we may come from cultures that are loud, strong and emotional, I think the point the Bishop is making is that it is our role to communicate in ways that are counter to what our culture would dictate. It is possible to speak respectfully, thoughtfully and with concern for the person you are responding to while still maintaining your strength and the strength of your argument.

I personally don’t know many people, who respond well, or have had their minds changed, by having folks insult, belittle or speak loudly at them. And these sorts of comments do appear on the Cafe in the Bishop Little post and others. Not only are they mean spirited but they also aren’t effective and don’t lead to any kind of growth for the various parties involved in the conversation.

Anyway, I don't Bishop Mathes’s post was meant to rehash the Bishop Little discussion, but to rather have a conversation about how we speak to each other and I think its possible we might have missed that point in our desire to argue our own beliefs when it comes to our stance on Bishops Little's decision or authority/power.

In regards to positions of power and authority - Speaking as a young adult, with what some might consider little power and coming from a place of no authority – I echo the Bishop’s call for civil discourse in the blogosphere and that we take care in our response to one another. Hopefully this point won’t continue to be so easily dismissed.

Mallory, Are you not the daughter of Suzann V. Holding, Canon of the Ordinary of the Diocese of San Diego? If so you are no disinterested observer. I wish that you had made this connection known in your post.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary, how do you figure that? Even if she is, "daughter to the Canon of the Ordinary" ought to be far enough from a position of power to allow someone to weigh in on a matter - especially something that ought to be as noncontro ersial as tje sort of civility Christians ought to exhibit. Even if she isn't, so what? Are you under the impression that those who comment on the Cafe are "disinterested observers" - on this or any other subject? I certainly had never gotten that impression.

I think some people on both sides feel free to excoriate their opponents because they imagine themselves to be engaged in prophetic behavior, and that their (our) righteous indignation blinds them to the possibility that they might be wrong. Everybody seems to their own little John the Baptist, with a hunting licenses against vipers and hypocrites (who always seem to be those who disagree with our own opinions, which we regard not as opinions but the Voice of God).

Apropos of vipers and civility on the Cafe, a fairly progressive priest I know once commented that the site was a "snake den" of nastiness when it comes to interpersonal relations. We often decry the sort if nastiness we see on some other AnglIcan sites while ignoring that around us.

I wonder, having read Bishop Mathes' post and the comments following, I do wonder if it is actually possible for us to speak to each other the truth in love and charity, or is that possibility gone for good in our church? We no longer assume that, despite differences, that we are trying our best to worship and honor the same God.

I am sorry you are seeing Priscilla's and my comments at not being in love and charity - speaking truth to power can also be loving. I am not saying we should not be civil - but disagreeing can be civil. Sometimes vocal and sharp disagreements are more loving than "playing nice" and stabbing one another in the back later. I have seen a lot of that in churches. I agree we should not attack one another's personhood - and need to have an attitude of care for one another. I am trying to point out that there is an underlying dynamic that happens when people feel shut out - especially by those with perceived (and real) power. And different cultures argue in different ways. But then there is this - a friend who writes for a national news service when I asked her how she dealt with the terrible comments said - "oh, I never read them, if I read the comments I would quit my job."

Bill, I could do a commercial for Google but will not. A writer with a personal connection to a subject should point that out so the readers may evaluate possible bias.

Ann, Yes, of course, to disagree is not necessarily to be uncivil. Being a doormat is far from being a good Christian. If one sees something wrong, one has a duty to inform people about it. And there are many ways to do so.

The fact remains same-sex couples in this denomination are at the mercy of diocesan bishops, who may decide whether to give them limited rights or no rights. The trial blessings have widened the gulf between liberal and conservative dioceses. Meanwhile the secular world has been making rapid progress. Forty-three years after Stonewall, the status quo in the Episcopal Church is unacceptable.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Lord, Gary, she's the daughter of someone who works for the bishop. She doesn't work for the bishop herself. Rather than playing Six Degrees of Bishop Mathes, maybe you could listen to what she's saying.

There are lots of connections between people on the Cafe - friends, colleagues, mentors. Full disclosure is neither usually expected, given. Or in many ways, possible.

As someone who posted a negative response to the announcement of Bishop Little's pastoral "solution," I feel that I should say something. After some consideration, I wonder if it might be helpful if we were to see our disagreements in a larger, Christian historical context and admit that we have never so far worked out a way to blend our ideals about peace/harmonious existence with our equally-valued ideals about truth and justice. It seems that our desires for peace often take the side of the maintenance of the status quo, whilst our moves to truth and justice often provoke conflict. The same "scriptures" tell us that Jesus may have said, "I have not come to bring peace but a sword," and at the same time may also have said, "My peace I leave with you..." Leaving aside questions as to whether either may be his authentic sayings, they suggest a dissonance that goes back to our very beginnings. It seems inevitable that, humans being what we are, things should not be so. I would like to suggest some sort of solution, but the dilemma may simply be insoluble. We may simply have to live with the difficulty until this new wound in the body of Christ has healed and our attention has shifted to the next one.

As someone whose comments are subject to on-again, off-again editing/moderation, I would like to make a suggestion. Several hours ago I entered a comment that has not appeared, the editors apparently having decided since my earlier comment this morning - not subject to pre-approval, that I am someone who bears watching. I do not know at this point if my comment was rejected, or if an editor hasn't gotten around to vetting it. I think it would be helpful if the editors would inform commenters when comments have been refused, what steps the commenter could take to make it more acceptable, and to have that policy mentioned in the notification that the comment is being held pending approval. That way the commenter would know if they needed to submit another version in hopes of the rewrite being more to the editor's liking, or if they just need to be patient. You have everybody's email, so sending the notification shouldn't present a problem, and in most cases shouldn't add too much of a burden on editors' time.

Oddly, I just submitted a comment that was not held for approval, which is rather anti-intuitive - if one comment was deemed unprintable, you'd expect future ones to be scrutinized.

Dear Bill - you used a different log in for the comment that was held - they are not actually held in this case -- just that the system did not recognize you as BillyD. We tend to "untrust commenters" who seem to be going over the edge with language or who do not sign a full name, we do not explain as it is in the guidelines -- we are all volunteers and there are only 5 of us for 7 days of work. This morning we were all in church. ~ed. AKF

"diocesan bishops, who may decide whether to give them limited rights or no rights"

Gary, how do rights enter into a discussion of sacramental practice (which is what we're speaking about here, although the rite isn't called a sacrament outright) given that it's pretty well established that no one has a right to the Sacraments? We're not a State Church, so the situation occurring in England where any (straight) couple has a legal right to weldin their home parish (whether or not they are even members of the CofE). Even the resolution approving SSBs didn't establish a right to it, specifically making its use subject to the diocesan's approval. As far as I know, no one has a right to receive any sacramental rites in this Church, from Baptism through to ordination - from where do these new rights of ours arise?

My apologies - straight English couples have a right to wed, not to weld, in their parish church. Stupid autocorrect.

"I could do a commercial for Google but will not. A writer with a personal connection to a subject should point that out so the readers may evaluate possible bias."

Huh? You're Google CEO Larry Page's son? Seriously, I have no clue as to any connection of yours with Google which would interfere with your doing promotional work for them.

There are lots of relationships among people who post and comment on this website: spouses, friends, parishioners, mentors, clients, e-friends. I have not noticed that there was much of a concern or effort to elucidate them when arguing for or against positions favored by those people. In some cases it would probably be difficult to make clear exactly what the relationship was, but I've seen even simple relationships ignored.

Mallory is the daughter of someone on diocesan staff. She is not the daughter of the bishop. She does not (AFAIK) work for the bishop, even in a consultant capacity. I'm not even sure if she lives within the limits of the Diocese of San Diego. I cannot imagine what interest might accrue to her by agreeing with the bishop. Her once-removed link to +Mathes is not the most important thing about her comment - which, lest we forget, was not about +Mathes so much as it was about civility.

[This is a re-write of the comment held for editing, but which could have fallen into an internet black hole. My apologies if the original turns up here.]

I apologize for not stating my mom’s position in the church. She is the Bishop’s Canon to the Ordinary. I didn’t mention it in all honesty because it never even occurred to me to since it had no direct impact on what I wrote. It’s my mother’s job, not mine. I’ve never even lived on the west coast, let alone been a member of the Diocese of San Diego. I am an adult, my opinions are my own and formed by my own experiences in the church and in reading comments on these blogs. To be honest, I’m a little insulted at the suggestion that I would just copy the opinions of my mother or her Bishop, and not be able to think for myself and operate independently of them. Do we all want our opinions to be connected with the jobs our parents have?

We all come to these conversations with connections and biases. Should I have listed of all my relationships in the church, or the Episcopal organizations I’ve been a part of since (in my opinion) they formed the basis of my bias, so that you can evaluate it better? Perhaps when we talk about issues of young adults or youth in the church, we should disclose our age. Or our sexuality or race. Or in talking about Bishop Little’s letter we could say what dioceses we all came from. If a priest had commented on Bishop Little’s pastoral letter, and it was discovered that he was a priest in the diocese of Northern Indiana, would that mean his comments held any less weight? I realize these are not exactly the same issue, but its something to consider. Does my echoing the request for a consideration towards civil discourse hold to be dismissed because there are a couple degrees of separation between Bishop Mathes and I? Should I keep quiet and keep my thoughts to myself?

Ann – thanks for your comment. I did feel there were hints of dismissiveness and condescension in the posts, but I may have been interpreting them wrong and if that were the case I apologize but it again would speak to the need to think about what we write and how others will read it. Overall though my first comment was directed at comments made throughout posts on the Café in the hopes that we could have a conversation about how we speak to each other on blogs. I just didn’t want Bishop Mathes’s comment to be ignored because it came from a place of authority (which seemed to be happening) because it is something that I have often wished I could have expressed in the past. I do have one gripe with your 2nd comment. You said that your friend at ENS said she just doesn’t read the comments. This can’t be what you are suggesting for me or other readers of Episcopal blogs like Episcopal Café who ask for more respectful conversations because that would mean not participating in the conversation at all…which I thought was on of the purposes of this site.

Thank you Bill for your comments.

Thanks Mallory -- I think the point of Bishop Mathes' essay is to help us reflect on the power of our words in cyberspace and how they line up or not with our faith. BTW my friend is not with ENS but with main stream media - who reports on religion as well as other topics.

Ann, thanks for the explanation. For some reason Typepad was not accepting my "Sign in with Twitter" login, so I used my Google one - I had forgotten that it did not include my full name, or I would have signed my name. Sorry for any confusion.

Happy is the one who can discern "tone" in an electronic posting and in an age of deconstruction.

One may speak of a "pastoral tone" for example. Part of the difficulty is communications presented as "pastoral" are often instead perceived of as "power-full" depending upon who is reading the same. The final word about whether or not the letter in question is pastoral in tone may belong to the gay and lesbian couples reading it.

I read through all the comments here and at the post on Bp. Little's pastoral letter, and I see nothing so very terrible in the comments to either post. I see opinions, strong opinions, expressed passionately at times but nothing that would get my knickers in a wad were the words posted on my blog.

The negative opinions concerned the decision by the bishop not to allow SS blessings in his diocese and were, on the whole, not personal attacks but rather disagreement with the policy.
Passionate disagreement is part of the history of the church, and I don't see why it should now be labeled considered unChristan.

June Butler

In the internet world before blogs, there used to be an old saying "assume good intent." Perhaps it might be a good thing to do so even when reading the comments of posters who disagree with the writer's position or that of a commenter on the writing.

Snarks are cheap shots. Pointing out possible alternative readings is criticism. The trick is learning when criticism is healthy and when it is not. Again, assumption of good intent might not be a bad guideline to follow, rather than jumping to the offensive or defensive stance.

Just a thought, probably worth about $0.149 after taxes.

Linda Ryan

"The negative opinions concerned the decision by the bishop not to allow SS blessings in his diocese and were, on the whole, not personal attacks but rather disagreement with the policy"

Several of the comments were IMO personal attacks thinly disguised as disagreements with the policy.

"Passionate disagreement is part of the history of the church, and I don't see why it should now be labeled considered unChristan."

It's the "passionate" part that's tricky, I think, given that passion, in Christian moral discourse, can be either good or bad. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11534a.htm The problem is that I don't think it's always very easy for us to tell when our own passions are moral or not, given that passions generally are so terribly natural and feel so good, and so easily get out of hand.

In the past passionate disagreement among Christians has led to physical violence: St Nicholas slapping Arius, anti-Chalcedonian riots instigated by monks, the frequent fistfights between the various factions at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher - and that's not even taking European religious wars into account. Even passionate disagreement that has not led to physical violence has done great damage to the Church at times. The nasty anti-Catholicism of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the homophobia of Fred Phelps may not have resulted in bloodshed, but they certainly haven't done the Church much good. All of these people (well, with the exception of Phelps) would probably deny being motivated by hate and anger, and instead defend their words and actions with appeals to various Bible verses and claim that they were being led by love, a thirst for justice, or speaking truth to power.

I'm not saying that everybody has to be "nice" all the time, or that passionate disagreement is always wrong but a wholesale embrace of passionate disagreement simply because it has a long history in Christianity worries me. That history is not universally attractive.

Bill, your comment leans toward slippery slope. If we argue passionately, then it might lead to physical violence, because it has in the past. Passion is tricky, but it's part of human nature, and we won't soon see the end of it. We practice restraint to keep ourselves from going too far. But what is too far? Certainly violence goes too far as well as violent or hateful speech, name-calling, lying. I haven't seen anything like that in the comments here.

June Butler

Apropos of vipers and civility on the Cafe, a fairly progressive priest I know once commented that the site was a "snake den" of nastiness when it comes to interpersonal relations.

As the spouse of a priest, I find it hard to believe that *any* clergy person would see Episcopal Cafe as a "snake den of nastiness" unless they simply never venture out into the wild, wild West of the Internet or talk to any parishioners, ever, about hymn choices. (Also--insert joke about the Altar Guild here.... ;-)

People here are passionate, but "vipers"?! I've seen some real ugliness in the church, and I have never seen that level of vitriol here.

I certainly made a snarky comment (probably even the first shot over the bow) on the original thread about Bishop Little. I do not apologize for it because I was trying to make a point. You are not being "pastoral" by making people leave their home parishes to have their unions blessed. You are not being "pastoral" by refusing to allow priests who want to preside at same-sex blessings to do so.

You are pastoral when you make room for those on both sides to follow their consciences--not when you tell one group they have to hit the road in order to find blessing.

If Bishop Mathes or Bishop Little were/are discomforted by my snark....good. They are not the ones paying the price for their decisions and their demands for civility (a demand they apparently expect to be met only on their terms). People I love are paying that price, and I'm tired of those in power continually exacting yet another pound of flesh from those who have already paid more than their share.

As a feminist, I am all-too-familiar with "tone arguments." They don't work for me in either secular society or the church. If conforming to the demands of the powerful for an insincere civility is the price for admittance, you won't find me paying it. Is that the goal--to drive people of passion and commitment out of the church?

I know that the Episcopal Church has the reputation of being a refuge for WASPs, with our pinkies curled around tea cups (or the gin bottle), but is that who we really are?

And, if so, what do we do with the story of Jesus overturning the money changers' tables in the temple? Was that "nice" or "civil"? Also, if the Gospel reading from this past Sunday bears any relation to actual events, Jesus himself was the victim of snark from the Syrophoenician woman ("Yes, sir...but even the dogs eat of the crumbs from the children's table.") And--lo and behold--it changed his mind.

Please note that it was a marginalized woman who managed that--who dared to challenge the Son of God on his unexamined prejudices with a snarky comment. When I picture that interchange, I always see her giving Jesus a sideways glance and a roll of the eye. And thank God for those of us who are Gentiles that she did....

Thank you, Rod! I especially like: "The final word about whether or not the letter in question is pastoral in tone may belong to the gay and lesbian couples reading it." The authorial intentions of a bishop are less important than the impact of his words on real people.

Thank you, Paige! The marginalized woman who challenges Jesus is a good model.

Bill, Your point about Christians doing violence to other Christians would seem to prove that the notion that was a time when people were nice to each other is a myth.

Gary Paul Gilbert

June, my argument would tend towards the slippery slope if I had written passions were always bad, or that we must agree or be "nice" in order to avoid the slope. In fact, I wrote the opposite. That said, I don't see the accusation of slippery slope as always being a damning indictment. Some slopes are slippery.

Paige, an argument for caution is not an argument for "niceness." But I'd also point out that tone arguments are not uniformly fallacious - especially when the topic being discussed is precisely tone! People may need to hear what we are saying in spite of the tone we use, it's true. But if we expect to actually persuade others, rather than merely vent, we have to take tone into account at times. Practicality aside, though, the dismissal of criticism as tone argument assumes that the logic of the argument is paramount. It might be - if the Church were a debate club. It is not, and sometimes Christian charity should compel us to examine our tone.

Gary, your point is -- what, exactly? I'm not aware that I ever argued there was a Golden Age of niceness, in the Church or elsewhere. In fact, the only time I recall discussing the subject here I wrote that I doubted such a time had ever existed, and started with St Stephen's final sermon as the beginning example. You seem to be pointing out that my posts on this thread support something I'd written on another, which doesn't seem all that remarkable.

First, it should be said that the dialogue at Episcopal Café is remarkable civil in comparison to certain Anglican-oriented blogs I don’t think I have to name. I see the “problem” Bishop Mathes addresses as less important than he does.

I do think it significant that it was a bishop who brought up the tone issue, because I think it highlights a problem in the church and the Communion generally.

In her address to the Episcopal Women’s Caucus at General Convention, Bonnie Anderson pointed out that, in hierarchical organizations, the people at the top tend to relate to their peers (colleagues) more strongly than to the people beneath them in the hierarchy. A sense of collegiality can cause leaders to place a higher priority on pleasing their colleagues than on conducting the business of the organization for the benefit of its ordinary members.

Episcopal bishops, I suggest, are exceedingly deferential to one another, even in cases where their colleagues are behaving badly. It took years to discipline Bob Duncan, for example, and other bishops who should have been given the same discipline have escaped scot-free. Such deferential dialogue is, I suggest, not Christian, but dysfunctional. A little yelling and screaming in the House of Bishops might better advance the kingdom. If Bishop Mathes is using the House of Bishops as a model of proper behavior on blogs such as this one, I think he is using the wrong model.

I suspect that, if bishops were to be less “collegial” and more honest in their deliberations, the General Convention would not have left the matter of blessing same-sex unions to bishops. As it is, we are protecting not the consciences of Episcopalians, but those of bishops.

But I should return more directly to the matter of blog comments. Two matters must be acknowledged here. First, most of us have lives beyond the blogs we read, perhaps even beyond the church to which we belong. For many, participating in the conversation at all means jotting off a quick comment and moving on. Do we really want to say that people should say nothing at all unless they read a post multiple times and think about it for a few days before offering a reaction?

Second, not everyone, not every Episcopalian, is a skilled rhetorician. Not everyone can create a devastating argument in cool, rational terms, even when what they have to say is right on. They may resort to sarcasm, exaggeration, or even obscenity to communicate the depth of their feeling. People here may not go quite so far, but such “extreme” commentary may indicate something other than that the poster is not a nice person. It may communicate a passion of which others need to take notice.

This is to say that making hard and fast rules about comments on blogs is difficult, and individual cases may need to be given special treatment. In any case, I think Bishop Mathes’ model for how we should all behave here is impractical and simplistic.

My approach is to generally favor engagement, versus fight-or-flight. The latter, it seems, is both the cause and the result of a need for one person to win, and the other to lose, with the result that a true solution rarely is found.

That said, in this case, we have had more than enough "civil discourse" over the role of LGTB persons in the church. This issue has dragged on for more than 35 years, and I have had friends -- including one of my first priests -- who lived and died waiting for the chance to live their lives, free from fear. Yes, one catches more flies with honey, but when the honey becomes so old that it dries out, the flies quit coming.

As to Bishop Little, the issue I have with his actions is that he has not permitted those in his diocese whose views differ from his own to live out their faith. If he is uncomfortable, so be it. But forcing others to travel outside his diocese to exercise their beliefs smacks of separate and unequal--and yes, I deliberately invoke the image of the struggle for racial equality.

Bishop Mathes also appears to ignore the role of the prophetic in the church. Almost all social change has come about when persons outside the via media have pushed for social justice. Indeed, I fear that, were we left to dither along in traditional TEC fashion, we'd still be singing "God Save the Queen." (This might not be a bad thing, given that the UK appears to moving more quickly than us towards marriage equality.)

As to the issue of inclusion, this is a non sequitor. To say that Bishop Little’s decision is morally wrong is not the same as saying he should leave the church. I have not said that. Instead, I am arguing for him to allow diversity of practice within his diocese, which is true inclusion.

So, to Bishop Mathes and others, let me be clear: I am not suggesting that Bishop Little's actions are morally wrong and reprehensible. I am not implying this. I am stating so clearly and unequivocally.

Again, I say: Shame on you, Bishop Little.

Eric Bonetti

Eric, if Bishop Little is in the moral wrong, so is everyone who voted for the SSB rite at General Convention, since the resolution approved explicitly gives not only Bishop Little but every other diocesan the authority to do exactly as he has done.

Bill,

Thank you for your comment. With all respect, however, just as there are many things that are legal, yet not ethical, so too are there behaviors within TEC that accord with canon law, yet are not ethical. No doubt Bishop Little acted within his right to restrict others within his diocese from the exercise of their beliefs; that does not speak to the moral value of his actions. Indeed, it is well-settled that "I was just following orders," does not absolve one of individual moral responsibility.

Similarly, it does not follow that, because one authorizes a certain act, one is automatically responsible for the actions of those who perform that act. For example, legislators may have valid reasons to pass legislation authorizing citizens to use force for self defense. Passing such legislation does not mean that legislators condone, without question, all acts committed in the name of self-defense.

In the meantime, I trust that Bishop Little's actions speak eloquently to his colleagues who, clear canonical language to the contrary notwithstanding, argue that TEC is not hierarchical.

Eric Bonetti

"Similarly, it does not follow that, because one authorizes a certain act, one is automatically responsible for the actions of those who perform that act."

They absolutely are responsible if someone acts strictly within the bounds of that authorization. You can't really have it both ways. If it was moral for GC to leave the decision to allow or forbid SSBs within his diocese to Bishop Little alone, setting no conditions - which is exactly what they did - it cannot also be immoral for Bishop Little to make that decision. If somehow Bishop Little's actions did not fall within the terms of the resolution, then show how. Otherwise, claims that GC acted morally but +Little immorally won't stand up to scrutiny. And if leaving the decision in the hands of diocesan bishops was an immoral thing to do, what's the explanation for the conspicuous absence of any progressive hue and cry along those lines when the resolution passed?

It might also be interesting to hear your theory as to why no progressive bishops are claiming that he acted immorally, or challenging his decision. What's keeping +Robinson, for example, from publicly condemning +Little's decision? The obvious inference, of course, is that while they wish he had not made the decision he did, they recognize that it was his decision to make.

@Bill: Let's try getting at this via a couple examples. If, for example, I am a teacher, and it is legal for me to use corporal punishment in the classroom, are you contending the fact that it is legal renders moot the ethical aspect of this issue? Or, in the case of the death penalty, are you saying that the fact it is legal removes any ethical component? Was slavery ethical because the laws of the time allowed it? Or the seizure of native American lands?

Sorry, but I am not prepared to accept that the fact something may be legal -- in canon law or elsewhere -- removes the ethical component of one's decision. Nor am I prepared to accept that absence of criticism speaks to the ethics of a decision.

Eric Bonetti

Eric, I haven't argued that the decision is without a moral aspect, although you and I disagree asto that moral aspect. What I have argued is that those who explicitly left the decision to +Little must necessarily share in that moral aspect.

Let's use your examples. If a state legislature approves the use of corporal punishment, and a teacher spanks a child within the limits of the law, it cannot be that the teacher acted immorally while those who gave him permission to do so are innocent. If the electorate approves capital punishment or slavery, it cannot then claim innocence when someone is put to death or enslaved in accordance with the law it approved.

As to the lack of criticism, I asked its reason. You haven't answered. Silence doesn't affect the morality of an action, but it's a truism dating back to the sages who wrote the Talmud and the ancient Romans that silence means consent.

What I'm asking is that you be consistent in your application of morality. If +Little's decision merits outrage and condemnation, then those who enabled that decision - or rather, explicitly left the decision in his hands alone - ought to bear that outrage and condemnation as well.

@Bill,

A couple of points that I would raise:

- In our legal system, silence is deemed not to be consent. (It's almost invariably also a logical fallacy.)

- Certainly, in the discussions I had with folks at GC, there was ample dissent about the conscience clause. My sense is that it was perceived, at best, as a necessary evil. As to the lack of criticism in the media, I suspect we, as a denomination, are moving somewhat towards addressing such matters internally, versus in the court of public opinion.

- I deliberately left the larger issue of the ethics of the conscience clause on the table.

To bring the coversation back to the original point of the thread, I have no qualms with the tone or tenor of the conversation. Bishop Mathes argues for civil discourse, but I have yet to see anything said on this site about Bishop Little or his decision that is inappropriate. And again, to not personally participate in blessing a same-gender relationship is a very different matter than firewalling an entire diocese because of one's views. The lack of inclusion rests with Bishop Little, not those who dislike his decision.

Eric Bonetti

"In our legal system"

Now who's using legality to argue morals? ;-)

" Certainly, in the discussions I had with folks at GC..."

I had no idea that you were at GC, Eric. Were you a deputy?

"...there was ample dissent about the conscience clause. My sense is that it was perceived, at best, as a necessary evil."

My comments haven't been based on the conscience clause, but on this operative clause: "Resolved, That the 77th General Convention authorize for provisional use "The Witnessing and Blessing of a Lifelong Covenant" from "Liturgical Resources I: I Will Bless You and You Will Be a Blessing" beginning the First Sunday of Advent 2012, under the direction and subject to the permission of the bishop exercising ecclesiastical authority..." The resolution does not authorize the rite for use throughout the Episcopal Church absolutely, but only where, when, and under those circumstances the local bishop allows it. It was a foregone conclusion that some bishops would not approve the use of the rite. If not allowing the rite's use were truly immoral, GC would have had no business allowing it no matter what the payoff was - you can't do good by enabling evil. GC's explicitly making the decision to give or withhold permission the responsibility of the diocesans alone, without any preconditions, means it gave approval for some bishops to forbid the rite, which further means that GC shares in whatever culpability attaches to those bishops.

I don't think that Bishop Little's actions were immoral, so I don't think there's anything for GC to share. But someone who does think it was immoral should hold GC accountable for enabling him.

This dialogue between Eric and Bill seems largely to assume that actions are either good or evil. To think thus is not only wrong but very un-Anglican.

The reality is that what was passed by the General Convention was a compromise, though not one discussed much as such. An unconstrained permission to use the new rite likely would not have passed. Allowing reactionary bishops to prevent use of the rite was a politically necessary step toward the day when such morally compromised restrictions could be removed.

I consider not allowing the perfect to prevent the good to be virtuous. I would have judged it virtuous had Bishop Little banned use of the rite because of a belief that it would have harmed the diocese by causing dissension that would have distracted from more pressing priorities. I do not consider it virtuous that Bishop Little seems only interested in preserving his personal sense of righteousness.

Lionel, how is determining things to be either virtuous/non-virtuous pair anything other than a weak, latinate version of judging things good/evil?

How is Bishop Little's authorizing diocesan clergy to perform the rite in other dioceses not better than a determination to discipline them for doing so?

Bill,

What Bishop Little did was better than prohibiting the use of the new rite by his clergy or disciplining them for using it. What he did was worse than allowing the use of the rite in Northern Indiana with appropriate preparation.

Bishop Little earns a C+.

Well, that considerably better than the F some commenters seemed to assign him...