January 28, 2020


By Chaplain Mike

1. the act of confabulating; conversation; discussion.

Today, I want to give a shout out to the Internet Monk community for an engaging, thoughtful, considerate, and helpful discussion on yesterday’s post, “A Conversation We Must Have.”

It makes one hopeful.

We certainly didn’t all agree. We came at the subject from a number of different perspectives, and I was happy that we were able to listen so well to all the diverse voices and opinions that were expressed. I only had to throw out a few gentle encouragements to help us stay on track, no more. In fact, I’ve coined a new word to describe all of you—Confabulous!

I don’t need to go on. I just want to say, “Thank you.” Being able to be part of discussions like these is why we do what we do here at IM. You encourage me, and for that I am grateful.

You know, I wasn’t sure the conversation would end up that way. I was afraid it might turn out like this—


  1. What! You want an argument! Cor! I was just looking for a bit of cheese!

  2. Did yesterday’s discussion set a new high water mark for participation? Seems like it did, at least for most comments within 24 hours . . . but who’s counting.

  3. Tim van Haitsma says

    I do not think that word means what you think it does. From wiki
    In psychology, confabulation is the spontaneous narrative report of events that never happened. It consists of the creation of false memories, perceptions, or beliefs about the self or the environment usually as a result of neurological or psychological dysfunction.[1] When it is a matter of memory, confabulation is the confusion of imagination with memory, or the confused application of true memories.[2] Confabulations are difficult to differentiate from delusions and from lying.[3] With respect to memory, wild confabulations about one’s past are rare in the absence of organic causes (e.g., brain damage), and the term “confabulation” is often restricted to these types of distortions. In contrast, even neurologically intact people are susceptible to memory errors or confusions due to psychological causes (see false memory).

  4. Chaplain Mike, again I say thanks for having the discussion in the first place. When I left the comments they numbered in the 120’s. I looked in last night and it was in the high 200’s. I wanted to catch up and participate, but I had friends coming for dinner and no time for blogs. This morning the comments were closed and totalled more than 300. I consider this to all be Divinely appointed for me to be mainly an observer. I replied to a few comments, but never a full-on display of my entire viewpoint, and that is what God intended.
    I have pondered this topic of the gays vs. church, and at times have wanted to join with SoulForce or find a way to engage in the debate. There is my rub….the debate. It seems to hit me personally, and that pits me against “them”, and that causes distortions for me. The same with politics. I had heated debates with dear friends during the Dem. primaries…I was team Hillary, they team Obama. It got ugly at times, and somewhat personal. That seems to be at direct odds in how I want to experience life. The Christ-love I want to present to people gets lost when it becomes me vs. you. This is a new lesson I am learning, and it feels good to lay it down.
    I have read all the comments, with the exception of those that equated gays with pedophiles and beastiality or whatever. I stopped short of reading the entireity of their thoughts. All the rest was reassuring to some degree, and most respectful of persons. All in all a success. Congratulations.

  5. The Seeker says

    Chaplain Mike
    There may be a way to reframe the debate if we have future discussion.

    For me the question comes down to this: In a pluralistic society how should we engage the culture at large on issues that one or both of us find offensive?

    If I frame the discussion as ‘I am a Christian and need to have a “prophetic voice” ‘ I am in trouble from the start.

    I would rather say that we need to hold an attitude of respect at all times, and a willingness to be able to say ‘I disagree but that should not stop relationship’.

    I don’t think Evangelicals are the only ones who do not hold an attitude of respect at times.