While not known as extroverts, we’re still perceived as hospitable, friendly and benevolent – but not always to each other, it seems.
The public discourse about the likelihood of St. Peter’s Estonian Lutheran Church in Toronto being sold has raised concerns about the possibility of unethical procedures used that are rarely practised in the community. It’s sometimes noted that, “eesmärk pühitseb abinõu” – ends justify the means. But ends and means are related, not separate actions. If the goal is morally justified, the means to get there should be ethical. Mutual acrimony, through raised voices, harsh language and personal attacks need not be a harbinger of unethical conduct. Practitioners of unethical methods usually have a smug contempt for the ‘ill-informed’. (Yes, I’m sanctimoniously judgmental. No apologies.)
Estonian traits have been starkly displayed among online comments regarding the St. Peter’s Church controversy. Can this hostility and name-calling be part of our Estonian heritage? (Kaks eestlast, kolm vaidlust.) But at the risk of sounding xenophobic, Estonians are not ‘hot-blooded’ as some other ethnic groups have been branded.
Personal attacks and nastiness usually shut a discourse down and often end in a destructive relationship. However, this hostility hides in online anonymity. Toxic, unattributable accusations can break down conversations, while vigorous, open debate encourages dialogue.
This writer is not qualified to assess the relative merits of the opposing positions of either the former church executive or the “Friends of St. Peter’s”. Simplistic analyses do not help in solutions. Usually, an argument supplies facts and plausible reasons for a particular claim. Credible arguments can be persuasive and offhand rejections of the other’s position aren’t helpful. Since there’s no gain to question anyone’s sincerity, we assume that both sides were fighting their own, “righteous” fight.
One hopes that the online postings of scripture passages in the debate are those of true worshipers and not a shallow display of holier-than-thou poseurs.
Robust, open debate reflects the vitality of a community. We need to express ourselves and have our voices heard. We shouldn’t shy away from arguments. Verbal confrontations can move the discourse forward.
We can’t take claims of “speaking for all” at face value. Those who “speak for all” also speak the loudest and shrillest. We shouldn’t confuse all with loud.
Arguing can actually keep people engaged in the community. While some at the extraordinary meeting of St. Peter’s congregation were not familiar with the details of the issues involved, the standing-room-only attendance, at the very least, showed commitment.
Finding complete agreement on how to proceed with the future of St. Peter’s is likely impossible, but discovering some points of agreement can advance the common good. In spite of humble listening and careful consideration of the opposing case, we’re destined to live with some differences. Peripheries will probably remain distant, but the active core can adjust for unity. Without unity, our small community, surrounded by a massive, ethno-cultural assimilator, will fade. (Yes, my smug platitudes. Again, no apologies.)
Neither is silence useful as a remedy for complex problems. Silence fosters a false community, distances people from each other and nurtures divisions that may resurface.
Perhaps the depth of emotions displayed by this confrontation could be a measure of the readiness of people to engage in community issues. Heated deliberations can turn some people off, but they can also foster commitment.
On occasion, we are still reminded of the heated disputes in the late 1960s regarding visits to Soviet-occupied Estonia and relations with Estonian cultural personalities. It’s claimed that the split in the community still reverberates today. Yes and no. We sometimes talk about it, but no deep resentments linger. In fact, a new group, that was then establishing itself in the community, was said to foster an ‘appeasement’ mentality to Soviet occupation. The victim of this unwarranted attack – Metsaülikool – became an established institution that thrives to this day.
Our open arguments can be divisive but could, at the same time, shake the non-committed out of their complacency. Spirited argument is an investment that invigorates our community.
