I am a recovering on-line jerk...

I Joshua G., the poster formally known as Xpy, have been known to frequent several Orthodox/Interdenominational forums over the past ten years or so (since I became Orthodox, it would seem). Honestly, most of them I couldn't recommend to anyone. Some are just not busy enough to spur any interesting conversation while the majority are filled with hate-mongering and promote divisiveness with a truly anti-Orthodox spirit.

However, two that I can recommend are Monachos.net and Christian Forums. Neither one is for everyone. The former is great for in-depth study and discussion on Patristics. I have rarely ever gone their to offer my personal unique input (and when I have, have been humbled very quickly), but rather to post questions and read the excellent responses that spew forth from those much more gifted than I in Patristics. I should also mention that the head moderator, Father Deacon Michael (Steenberg), is the finest anyone could hope for. He is level-headed, extremely learned, never offensive and the voice of reason. There are several posters there, including Fr. Raphael, whom I highly esteem for similar reasons, but I am getting off track now.

Christian Forums, more specifically, the Eastern Orthodox subforum The Ancient Way (or "TAW"), does not hold very much in common with Monachos, but can still be useful, especially for the average Joe like me. It is much more emotional and online personalities play a huge role there. While Monachos may be a community of learners and teachers, TAW is a community of personalities. This makes for very lively conversation about everything from cats to beer to family issues, to asking for prayers, to the filioque to book reviews and to spiritual progress. Whatever is discussed downstairs after divine Liturgy is discussed (ad nauseum, I might add) in TAW. As long as it is approproiate for coffee-hour, it's appropriate for TAW. It should also be mentioned that, just as Catholics, atheists, protestants or seekers may visit your Church on Sunday and stick around for the donuts afterward, the same is true in TAW.

Now, a word of warning. You have to take what you hear in TAW with a grain of salt moreso than in Monachos.net. Remember, while Monachos might be compared to an on-line patristics version of C.S. Lewis' informal debate club the Inklings, TAW is coffee hour after divine liturgy.

I frequent the latter. It's easier, it's interesting, you almost always get what's going on, and being learned is not a rerequesite for sharing your thoughts (be that good or bad :))

Mostly, though, I post there because it helps me organize and challenge my own thoughts on pretty much everything. But, in the process, I have learned a lot about myself too.

The problem or the blessing of on-line forums is the shroud of anonymity they offer. No one has to know who you are and that can be a dangerous thing to the soul. I mentioned several times that TAW is like coffee-hour after Church. But that's not entirely true. To demonstrate, let me post some examples of things I have said on-line to or about those who disagree with me. Disclaimer: obviously others will see themselves in some of these quotes below, but this is honestly about me as I fully own up to having used them time and time again MYSELF.

1. Are you even listening to me?
2. Obviously you feel you know better than St. ______/the Church because...
3. Uhhh... (that's supposed to be that "Uhhhh...." that implies "that was so illogical, I don't even know how to respond to that."
4. Please show me where you got that from. I would LOVE to see where I have EVER said or implied something like that.
5. Am I taking crazy pills? Did you not just read what I wrote?

Now, this is quite common rhetoric in most on-line debate forums (well, except for the last one, I stole that from Zoolander and brought it into the TAW debate-sphere :)) so chances are, if the reader has frequented debates, they can see themselves in some of these quotes. But this is primarily about me.

Every single one of the above statements I have made is an example of a time I have treated my "opponent" as an irrational human being. It is an example wherein I try to "win" a debate, not through the strength of my content alone, but through attacks on their inteligence or sincerity. I have had great debates face-to-face with people wherein I have either learned a lot about the other's position or bolstered my own abilities or both. But rarely have I resulted to such ad hominem attacks (shrouded in irony to seem playful) and everytime I have, I feel ashamed afterward.

I am (slowly) learning to kick this habit, but I have fallen off the band wagon, even as recently as last week. However, the following is something that helps me with this. If there is a true feeling behind my snotty comment that I wish to express, I make sure that I can express it keeping in mind

• that it can be expressed without the secret motive of making myself look better (that's the hardest one as it relates to the problem of cunningness)

and

• with the goal of moving the debate along in a positive and constructive way.

With that, oftentimes the choice is simple: don't say it. However, let's say for some reason it is a sincere concern of mine. In such a case, I look at the way I can reword my snotty statements above to reflect a more genuine inquiry or point, and not a subtle attack on the other's integrity (numbered and corresponding in the same order as above):

1. Yes, however, earlier I had said ___. Do you see how that relates? If not, I may have taken that for granted. Let me know and I can explain my point of view more thouroughly. Otherwise, what are your thoughts on that in light of this? [sometimes it is more than once that the comment has been SEEMINGLY ignored... if so, I just move on from that and I don't repeat myself.]
2. You say that, but how do you respond to St. ____/the Church saying "___"?
3. [Usually the "Uhhh..." is nothing more than theatrics and can be deleted. If I truly didn't get what was being said, then I just need to learn to say, "What do you mean by that? I'm sorry, I truly didn't understand that."
4. [Now, the first part of this, "Please show me where you got that from." is fine although in a forum it can be misunderstood to sound snotty. Using some buffer words to make sincerity clear can helpful here. The second part like, " I would LOVE to see where I have EVER said or implied something like that." is when I have crossed the line.] Can you show me where you got that from? I'd had never heard that before and I'd like to learn more about that perspective.
5. [This last one, I have generally used because I am so frustrated that the other person isn't understanding what I am trying to express. I have found that oftentimes this is due to my terrible way of explaining things or simply the barrier that forums set up that make nuances more difficult to express to another person. Oftentimes, it means that I need to change my explanation, agree to disagree (and respect the others' right to disagree with me and how I have come to understand the Church Father in question) or ask for clarification on how they are understanding what I am saying.]

A vital point when using all of these re-phrasings above: they aren't just re-phrasings, they are a re-training of my attitude. I don't (or shouldn't) use the above as euphemisms at all. If the initial snotty feeling is still there when I am using nice words, then, on top of being disloyal to my brethern in Christ through (secret) haughtiness, I am also being insincere. So, I have to mean it. I have to truly be curious what it is that I am doing that is impeding their understanding. I have to truly be curious about where they base this point of view sincerely assuming that they didn't just make it up AND, if they can't find the quote or reference, giving them the benifit of the doubt that they did read something somewhere or were just trusting in what their priest or pastor taught them, which should be respected.

None of this means that I have to agree with them. But I have also worked hard to remember that just as I am not any less sincere for not agreeing with them, neither are they.

There is the occasional time when someone is just blatantly being unfair in a conversation. They truly are not willing to read or consider anything you wrote at all. Since I have learned to be more critical of how I debate in a forum, I have not yet PERSONALLY encountered this person, but I am sure I will. However, I do know that these people are best ignored when this becomes obvious (that's difficult) or reported to a moderator if they are beligerant. And if I feel we initially had a rapport that is now being betrayed, I will call them out on it in very blunt terms like "hey, I feel you're being unfair here", although I should remember to do this in private (that's key, which is what I would not do before and actually messed up on recently... it takes away all sincerity and turns it into a show... and you might find out you were wrong anyway and look like an ass). This has been done to me several times by brothers and sisters in private and in love and has been quite effective... once I've had time to think about it and put my silly pride aside.

I don't know if this is helpful to anyone else. 85% of the point of this thread is to sort out my own thoughts, and the other 15% is perhaps to spur on interesting discussion. if it didn't help you, you probalby didn't need it. :)

Thanks for reading my thoughts!

Joshua