Blogging can be tougher than it has to be!

Yesterday I spent a significant chunk of time working on a post whose thesis was that respect, if nothing else in the form of lip-service, for the ideals of perfect purity (specifically, those dealing with sexual morality) enjoined by Jesus according to the Gospel is essential to Christian and Quaker (and indeed human) unity, even where we find it very difficult to live up to those ideals or indeed doubt that strict adherence to its injunctions are the better part of Godly wisdom, and that to the extent that the liberal faction of Quakerism depreciates those ideals by (sometimes subtle) cultural attitudes and unnecessary public positions and statements the dis-unity that we so deplore can be attributed to it.

Now that wasn't so hard, and I pretty much just now said what I was trying to say in yesterday's labored unpublished draft. Of course, in yesterday's effort I endeavored to expound and explain, to make necessary qualifications in order to avoid giving unnecessary offense, to point out examples of what I was talking about, to consider consider contrary "arguments:, etc. But it's occurred to me (with some outside help) that in writing blog posts and in many other situations where we're proposing an idea it's best to not try to say everything, and to leave much to the hearer's own Light. It's better to risk being misunderstood and trust in the hearer's forbearance and charity, and to thereby leave room for a response that may increase our own understanding.