Triablogue: Where is Heidelblog?
An unacceptable event, the Rev. Dr. Scott Clark, pulling Heidelblog down, allegedly, after some internecine conflict with his Reformed consistory. No explanation, nothing. It stinks. Additionally, it is most unappealing in terms of leadership. Marines, never, ever, ever, ever drop their 100-lb. packs on a 30-mile march. Whatever transpired, it is BAD LEADERSHIP, PERIOD.
UPDATE of approximately 13 May 2011: We lost, inexplicably, an update from last week. It disappeared. (??). The rough date is 13 May 2011. Other blogs similarly complained of lost posts. I guess I too may say that. The sense of that lost post was to outline a restriction on the wider narrative with a narrowly-tailored objection. First, whatever transpired within the URC, OURC, WTS-CA was not at bar. With a sense of things, we have a sense of the Consistory's wisdom, especially as a Prayer Book Churchman. We understand the necessary difficulty and conflict that would obtain between an "Exclusive Singer of Only Canonical Texts" (which has our sympathy) and those allowing hymns beyond the canonical text. While we understand the tension, it was not our place to comment. This was not our issue. Second, Dr. Clark's desire to cease blogging was not at bar either. He's busy. He surely has other weighty matters at hand. Leaving the world of blogging is understandable. So, that is a non-issue as well. So, what is the issue? This is the issue: tearing down the entire archive of thoughtful, useful, scholarly, moderate, helpful and strategic posts. This narrowly-tailored objection still obtains without an iota of mitigation, although we are moving on--hopefully, in peace and with best wishes for OURC and Dr. Clark. While issuing this sustained protest, assuredly, we have not lost the big picture and perspective. Nor does our continuing objection "eclipse" the big picture. One "aw shucks" cannot and will not negate or mitigate the large thanksgiving for HB while it existed. Our strongest support, interest, thanksgiving and prayers are with Dr. Clark and OURC.
We took a bit of a drubbing from HB-supporters at a few places over our final disposition of this case. We are not changing our standing review. (1) Dr. Clark dropped the ball--big-time, while in war--by obliterating the blog. (2) Our objection is narrowly tailored. (3) We have not lost the big picture.
UPDATE 16 May 2011: Without retracting our narrowly-tailored, just, fair and right complaint, the finest comments we have found on this situation comes from an English Churchman, brother, and fellow reader of HB. His blog and moniker is "Church Campanologist." Calm and deliberative remarks which are salutary and wise. After the initial shock followed by a narrowly-tailored and rigourous response by this scribe, Church Campanologist rightly gives the sense that ought prevail. Thanks CC, you've registered the exact sentiments well and wisely. In moving on, this is the prevailing sentiment. Here this scribe stands--there are no rebuttals to this thesis. CC, while offering his own indpendent review to our's, precisely reflects our post-action views.
http://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/farewell-to-heidelblog-with-thanks/#comment-3489An unacceptable event, the Rev. Dr. Scott Clark, pulling Heidelblog down, allegedly, after some internecine conflict with his Reformed consistory. No explanation, nothing. It stinks. Additionally, it is most unappealing in terms of leadership. Marines, never, ever, ever, ever drop their 100-lb. packs on a 30-mile march. Whatever transpired, it is BAD LEADERSHIP, PERIOD.
UPDATE of approximately 13 May 2011: We lost, inexplicably, an update from last week. It disappeared. (??). The rough date is 13 May 2011. Other blogs similarly complained of lost posts. I guess I too may say that. The sense of that lost post was to outline a restriction on the wider narrative with a narrowly-tailored objection. First, whatever transpired within the URC, OURC, WTS-CA was not at bar. With a sense of things, we have a sense of the Consistory's wisdom, especially as a Prayer Book Churchman. We understand the necessary difficulty and conflict that would obtain between an "Exclusive Singer of Only Canonical Texts" (which has our sympathy) and those allowing hymns beyond the canonical text. While we understand the tension, it was not our place to comment. This was not our issue. Second, Dr. Clark's desire to cease blogging was not at bar either. He's busy. He surely has other weighty matters at hand. Leaving the world of blogging is understandable. So, that is a non-issue as well. So, what is the issue? This is the issue: tearing down the entire archive of thoughtful, useful, scholarly, moderate, helpful and strategic posts. This narrowly-tailored objection still obtains without an iota of mitigation, although we are moving on--hopefully, in peace and with best wishes for OURC and Dr. Clark. While issuing this sustained protest, assuredly, we have not lost the big picture and perspective. Nor does our continuing objection "eclipse" the big picture. One "aw shucks" cannot and will not negate or mitigate the large thanksgiving for HB while it existed. Our strongest support, interest, thanksgiving and prayers are with Dr. Clark and OURC.
We took a bit of a drubbing from HB-supporters at a few places over our final disposition of this case. We are not changing our standing review. (1) Dr. Clark dropped the ball--big-time, while in war--by obliterating the blog. (2) Our objection is narrowly tailored. (3) We have not lost the big picture.
UPDATE 16 May 2011: Without retracting our narrowly-tailored, just, fair and right complaint, the finest comments we have found on this situation comes from an English Churchman, brother, and fellow reader of HB. His blog and moniker is "Church Campanologist." Calm and deliberative remarks which are salutary and wise. After the initial shock followed by a narrowly-tailored and rigourous response by this scribe, Church Campanologist rightly gives the sense that ought prevail. Thanks CC, you've registered the exact sentiments well and wisely. In moving on, this is the prevailing sentiment. Here this scribe stands--there are no rebuttals to this thesis. CC, while offering his own indpendent review to our's, precisely reflects our post-action views.
Update 12:36 EST, 16 May 2011: Wes Bredenhof Actually the above is rather limited. But Google has oodles of caches from the Heidelblog. Like this: http://webcache.googleuser
Wes, thanks for this.
Update 19 May 2011. The dust has settled. Lest we were not clear above. We love, respect, honour and pray for the well-being of OURC, Dr. Clark, their work, their committment to Confessional Churchmanship, and their national witness. Of course, we are Prayer Book men, so we have some issues there. Our narrowly tailored complaint stands, as originally issued, but the greater perspective prevails.
Ref, thanks for the updates. There are several items from Heidelblog that I had quoted a number of times. I never copied them to my HD because it was easier just to link to HB.
ReplyDelete