Some of you have heard of "feo." He was a one-time commenter here who achieved the very rare category of "banned" because he couldn't seem to have a conversation without a fight. I allow a lot of latitude in comments here with the stipulation that it remain friendly. ("My mother reads these blogs," I tell people.) So feodor (the moniker he chose for himself) got himself banned yet continues to this day to hurl abuse at my comment section. It was a problem when I shifted to the new site. He logged in under multiple names and posted comments before I could block him. He was one of the primary reasons I returned to this site. At least here I get an email that says, "Someone has posted a comment" and I can delete the comment (and the email) without difficulty. There are only two on this list of "no longer allowed to comment" and the other isn't nearly as venomous as feo, so I delete feo's comments without reading them simply because I don't need the abuse.
I'll never figure out a person like that. John wrote, "Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness." (1 John 2:9) I don't generally characterize the other banned fellow as "hate" (angry a lot, perhaps, but not hate), but there is no other way to describe the feos of this world. (What is the correct plural for "feo"?) The level of hate there is beyond me.
But this isn't about feo. This is about me. This is about us -- those who are genuine believers. John's warning is for us, too. Do we claim to know God but hate people? I don't know how we can put those two side by side safely. Oh, we need to speak the truth. Absolutely. But we need to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15). If we see a brother in sin, the aim is to restore, not tear down (Gal 6:1). If a so-called brother is immersed in clear sin, I am commanded to not associate with them, not berate them (1 Cor 5:11-13).
The feo-types are gnats, buzzing about irritating but not hurting. I can ignore them. And I can pray for them. What I must not do is join them in their hate. We should answer a fool according to his folly so he might see the foolishness (Prov 26:5), but after that it's best to not answer him at all in order to avoid being like him (Prov 26:4). Our dialog should be marked by respect and gentleness (1 Peter 3:15), speaking the truth in love, seeking the best for all, even if it's an enemy (Matt 5:43-44).
8 comments:
After promising that he was done with the likes of us (over at Dan's), I guess the temptation was just too strong. He's back trolling my comments section as well. I also summarily delete his comments occasionally, I'll skim the visible part as I go through the deletion process. Occasionally, I'll read a couple of his comments at Dan's.
I don't read his stuff except for an accidental few words out of the corner of my eye before I deleting them, but the level of hatred is phenomenal. It serves as a reminder for me to avoid going there.
It's hard to not catch bits and pieces as I scroll through to delete them. I've accidentally deleted enough comments that I spend a little more time making sure I'm deleting the right comments before they hit the blog.
I have heard a couple of references on the news to "the 1619 project," and the claim that some schools (at what grade level I don't know) are going to be planning their curriculum around it in the school year we are entering now. From what little I know, it sounds just like what feo would want for his/her ("their"?) kids, and of course for everyone else's kids too. Maybe a future post from Stan on this topic? Or have you already touched on it?
I'm not familiar with the project. I have no plans to bring it up right now.
feo likes to try to post his comments intended for you at my blog. I've seen enough to think he believes he's in our heads. In our prayers, maybe, but really no where else as far as I'm concerned. At this point, even if he was to repent of his behavior, I don't know that I'd ever realize it, as I too do not spend more than a glance before deleting his attempts to post at my blog, and I really don't read his posts at Dan's. I really like having those with opposing views visit my blog in order to express themselves, as my blog motto is "to persuade or be persuaded". Regardless of what anyone hopes to otherwise convey, the mere expression of one's opinion is an attempt to persuade. There's no getting around that. It either advocates for an idea or objects to one advocated by someone else. Actually it does both at the same time. I expect responses rather than expect that no one should try. While I might not always be as "loving" as I ought to be, or rather than I don't appear to be due to my style, I really no longer care to put effort in worrying about whether or not each and every reader or listener will take my words in the spirit in which they are expressed. I don't have time for that anymore. I don't go out of my way to insult, even if it seems that way on occasion. Even here, in recent discussions, I've only concerned myself with an opinion, not the person expressing it. Yet, I've been accused of personal attacks. Well, I guess disparaging an opinion can be personal, but let's not all be snowflakes at once, OK? Why would I be mistaken for having ill intent at this stage of the game...after all this time?
The point here, therefore, is that just as important as how we express ourselves is the manner in which we respond to how other express themselves. It's just as much our Christian duty to listen in love as to instruct in love. For the feos of the world, it may be pretty clear of their intention after enough examples have been submitted. But for most of us, even a little snark must be accepted as well intended, because usually it is. Mock away.
(off topic)
Here's what you probably need to know about the 1619 project.
1. Historians who've studied it, point out significant flaws in the project.
2. The primary author has acknowledged that it isn't history, nor is it intended to be history. It's advocacy/propaganda as opposed to an accurate telling of the history.
3. The US didn't exist in 1619.
Yes, I looked it up, too. It's not history; it's propaganda.
Like the school my son has his son in. Their curriculum is focused on inclusiveness and unity. "Wait ... what about reading, spelling, math, that sort of thing?" "Oh, no, we need to teach them to be nice to everyone. That other stuff won't matter when we've taken over the country."
Post a Comment