I think it a hugely ironic that a post that focused largely on conflict resolution gave birth to one of the most contentious conversations on MoF. In spite of it being my son’s birthday, I spent considerable time thinking about the thread (in the shower, while driving, on my run). I’m going to do a post-game analysis, partly because I think it’s worthwhile, but also so that I can get closure and stop taking antacids.

It‚Äôs hard for me to analyze the discussion objectively because I was personally involved, but it seemed to be a little microcosm of the things that Juergensmeyer touched on. We had our own conflict‚Äîthe battleground was the post and the ensuing discussion, the weapons were words. It was interesting to me to review how the conflict was fanned from smoldering coals into blazing flames. Let me post the quote from Juergensmeyer one more time. Think about the There But for the Grace of God… post and discussion as you read it:

One of the first rules of conflict resolution is willingness to accept the notion that there are flaws on one’s own side as well as on the opponent’s side. This is the sensible stand if one’s goal is to get along with others and avoid violence.

But what if that is not one’s goal?…A warring attitude implies that its holder no longer thinks compromise is possible, or–just as likely–did not want an accomodating solution to the conflict in the first place. In fact, if one’s goal is not harmony but the empowerment that comes from using violence, it is in one’s interest to be in a state of war.

There was a decided lack of “willingness to accept the notion that there [were] flaws on one’s own side as well as on the opponent’s side.” For those of you who were involved in or who read the discussion, I hope you will consider who seemed interested in reaching a resolution, in acknowledging their own flaws (even if they pursued pointing out others’ faults). It is worthwhile looking at what concerns drove the conversation. Look for where generosity and understanding was lacking and where it was tentatively extended. Most importantly, it’s worth thinking about what verbal violences were committed (all around) and how violence changed the dynamic of the discussion.

I wonder what the costs of the conflict were. I think that within the context of the post, the battle had a clear winner, but the repercussions go far beyond the confines of this blog. I wonder what the long term casualties were, to reputation, to credibility, to relationships, to individuals’ egos and psyches. Who gained and who lost?

The environment on this blog has changed as well. For the first time in MoF’s five year history, I have decided to moderate comments. I won’t stop comments from being posted, but I will exercise my right to remove any comments that I feel destroy the sense of safety that seekers, religious and otherwise, might feel visiting here. I aspire to make this an open and affirming blog. I can tolerate civil disagreement but not verbal violence. My experience is that this has less to do with what one says and more to do with how one says things.

I think it‚Äôs worth extrapolating from our little microcosm out into the big wide world. It‚Äôs amazing to me that the dynamics that drive conflict in the comments thread on an obscure little blog are so similar to the ones that motivate war and terror. On both large and small scales, violence almost demands reciprocation–it is difficult to respond in any other way. The consequences may have their parallels as well, including injured persons, reduced sense of safety, heightened tensions and restricted freedoms.

I was going to allow discussion on this topic, but the more I think about it, the less healthy I think it would be. As much as I would like a meta-discussion about conflict resolution by analyzing the dynamic of the post, but I think that scab-picking would inevitably ensue. Welcome to Mind on Fire’s first (and hopefully last) closed-for-commenting post.