FCCU: A Postscript
The original author’s thoughts on the matter
Dear Christis,
It seems that the article I wrote in the last issue has generated quite a considerable amount of feedback (for Christis). Some of it I enjoyed reading, some of it I didn’t. I hope those who criticise the story (including those who didn’t feel the need to write to Christis) bear in mind the difficulty in writing something that will simultaneously work as a stand alone story, an allegory, that makes a series of arguments, that avoids attacking individuals and that is actually entertaining to read (and is perhaps even occasionally humorous). Undoubtedly it failed in many ways, but I do think it achieved some of its aims, if not fully. I would understand if some people thought I shouldn’t have written it.
On reflection and taking into account some of the comments received about the story, it is obvious there were several serious flaws with the story. Most of these, I feel, lay in what went unsaid rather than what was actually said. The article was most certainly not intended to be taken as the sum total or even a summation of my feelings about the CU. The CU is an excellent group of people with many wonderful members and which carries out some great work.
It is fairly obvious in retrospect that people could read a lot into the story that I did not intend (that was why I added a commentary to at least try to steer people in the ‘right’ general direction). It was really intended to look at two key issues: the suitability of the doctrinal basis for its current role, and related to that, the doctrine-centred approach that is inherent in that role although in actuality is probably only partially the case.
It is also obvious that some people may have found the article “too one-sided”. To them I can only point out that it was intended to be one-sided. I personally find so called “balanced” articles to be, for the most part, boring to read (and to write). The articles I like best are those that force me to come up with the opposing arguments, to think for myself, even where I disagree with the author’s conclusions.
I’d like to now consider some of the points raised in the feedback. Chris’s feedback is possibly the Christis article which I feel the most ambivalent about. On one hand his response is riddled with inconsistencies, misunderstandings and in places verges on outright hypocrisy; but on the other hand he makes a number of wonderful points where he articulates his vision of Christian unity.
He starts by objecting to a letter I wrote in response to Greg’s letter in issue 94. Here he completely misunderstands what I was saying. My comments about “I am the author so I am right!” were ironical. Realising that ‘getting’ the comments would require at least an intuitive grasp of some literary theory, I wrote part of it in italics and finished with an exclamation mark — to make it clear that these remarks were not to be taken seriously. He also seems to miss the main point of the letter — that Greg had missed a significant portion of the meaning of the story — probably due to my writing not being careful enough. Later he identifies two clearly inconsistent notions of satire: that which is “self explanatory” and that which “will only ever appeal to those who understand it anyway”, and then uses these to attack what I wrote.
However, my minor objections to Chris’s misunderstandings and literary analysis are insignificant when compared to my feelings about the way he approached my article. He aggressively attacks me for writing an article that attacked a small number of aspects of the way an organisation is run. He objects to a destructive style in a destructive style. While throwing stones in my direction he quotes “Let him who is without sin…” At this point one isn’t sure if the entire article is a joke.
To finish his article he advocates a simplistic “Satire is destructive. Let’s be constructive”. Well of course you should be constructive, but sometimes to build a building you need to knock down the existing one first. Satire isn’t necessarily destructive — it depends on which way the reader uses it. Lois uses it in a constructive way — to intelligently and carefully reflect on some of the issues raised, even if she reaches different conclusions to me. When Chris’s article finally gets past its aggressive attack it too makes some extremely valuable points. A pity he has just undermined, to some extent, everything written, by failing to meet those standards that he has just advocated. When he attacks me personally (“raise some concerns with your regular writer James Porter…how his mind works”) he crosses a line that I was careful not to cross when writing FCCU — that of a direct attack on an individual.
If I’ve lingered on the negative in Chris’s article it’s because the positive in the article stands on its own and needs little repetition (admittedly it’s also so that I can refute quite a bit of what he said). In his penultimate paragraph Chris states:
To all of you, I have a simple message. Unity is good. It’s not the same as uniformity. Let’s work together, celebrating our differences, correcting one another in love and celebrating the fact that we share in one God and in the death of his Son.
Elegant, concise, inspiring. If only he had stopped there.
I’m tempted at this point to retract FCCU, while pointing out that retracting the story is not the same as having never written it in the first place. I do apologise for any offence caused, and accept that I should have been significantly more careful in making myself clear. To those who found it offensive, objectionable or even just irritating I can only ask for forgiveness. And as a message to anyone: if you don’t find FCCU useful I encourage you to quite literally, but carefully, cut that page out of your copy of Christis and throw it in the bin.