Keep up the good work. I think you guys should turn off the "comments" function on the website, though. After a few years of reading and commenting on articles and postings myself, I don't think the medium provides a very good forum for the discussion of ideas, and frankly, I think having comments panders to our cultural tendency to talk way too much and reflect far too little, with talking serving as a sort of Rieff-ian performance of individual identities, instead.

"Physician heal thyself," this will be my last comment on the site, but I will, of course, continue to read it, as well as the hard copy of FT, which I've enjoyed for years.

Sorry arty, but I can't agree with you. Sure, any comment thread will have its share of snark, flame warring, and silly assertions (I have at times committed all three sins), but the First Things comments are some of the best on the web. I like having people of differing views present their arguments for or against the thesis of any particular article or post. It sharpens my own mind and strengthens my own arguments.

I enjoy First Things and would like to eventually see comments posted on all the articles, at least for those of us who subscribe. It might encourage more subscriptions, if the online version were set up so that comments could be made by subscribers. Just a thought.

Read why canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, who sometimes leaves comments at "Ignatius Insight Scoop" and "What Does The Prayer Really Say?" does not have comments on his own site (right edge of the page):

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

I agree Fred. The commentary on this website is unique in that the vast majority of the participants are sincerely looking to CONTINUE the conversation. The quality and topics of the articles play a huge role no doubt. I enjoy knowing that after reading and thinking about some of the points made that I can be enlightened by insightful reader commentary after. I am certain that reading First Things makes me a better person. Please keep it up.

Thanks for the great work, and don't lose the comment bank. For all the disagreement, the discussions on this bank are often the first harbinger of what become national conversations. The comments/discussion/arguments are almost always polite, in-depth, genuine and theologically trenchant. The Church is a huge, multifaceted organization with a host (sic) of complex issues for its members to work out. This is one of the best spots to do it.

Arty

I'm sorry things are tough right now!

Can you let me know the place that you find where no one ever says anything stupid or inappropriate? (I think that's called heaven and I'm not sure we can get there yet!)

You might be setting yourself up against some pretty serious heavyweights who believed that argument and discussion were indeed the only way to gain meaningful knowledge (reflection was considered a place for divine revelation or for taking an inventory, a chance to gather and focus your knowledge but never to sharpen it very greatly. This is why most great atheist thinkers end up so miserable, they wall themselves off intellectually because they've deemed the rest of society unfit or evil or both).

I have to heartily disagree with Arty, for three reasons:

1) Honest intellectual discourse requires dialogue. People thrive in environments where relational dialogue is possible. First Things/Thoughts is such a place.

2) To call oneself a Christian is to commit oneself to an ardent pursuit of the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. It also means engaging in the task of fraternal encouragement and correction. To cut off comments on all threads would seriously call into question the commitment of an organization to Christian encouragement and correction. I would likely stop frequenting First Things on a daily basis if such a move was made.

3) To cut off all comments plays right into the hands of secularists that would paint the religious as intolerant and patronizing.

Ok, I'll bite and open myself to charges of hypocritical grandstanding, against my better judgment.

Notice that Jacob's comment ignores what I actually wrote. I was arguing that our particular cultural time and place makes this particular medium for the discussion of ideas (which I nowhere rejected) not very effective. I invoked Rieff in support for this position, (though I could have invoked MacIntyre's "After Virtue" as well); my invocation of reasons/evidence is duly ignored above, which is possible, since none of us are face to face, and because the temptation to post immediate replies precludes going out and doing some reading first.

Notice also, that nowhere above does anyone suggest that the point of discussing things is to actually figure things out, to actually find some answers, versus discussion for its own sake. So, I'll hereby propose something constructive: I'll propose that every poster, as a preface to his/her comments, provide a list of conditions under which his/her position would be falsified.

The only argument against my position, above, is the argument that at least the FT comments are better than the other comment threads around on the web, which falsifies my position only if it can be shown that the FT comments in and of themselves are generally constructive, the "well at least it's not as bad as..." reply is irrelevant to the case at hand.

But why go on?

"Notice also, that nowhere above does anyone suggest that the point of discussing things is to actually figure things out, to actually find some answers, versus discussion for its own sake." --arty

Perhaps no one suggests that because it is implicitly understood by the majority on these boards. While some of those who come here to comment fall within the school of moral relativism, supporters of First Things tend to be those who think Truth is objective.

Sure there are flaws with "the system", as you've rightly pointed out, arty. My main criticism with message boards is that people (myself included) tend to be less civil and respectful of opponents in the absence of the immediate human presence and face that reminds us of each other's dignity.

But one should not reject that which has goodness and benefits merely because it is not perfect.

Noting that I agree wholeheartedly with artaban's observation that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I'll let the following quote from Christopher Lasch, who is referencing the logic of the early work of Philip Rieff, stand as my contribution to the discussion above:

Speaking of Rieff, Lasch says "Our most eloquent and effective critic of the therapeutic style asks us to consider the possibility, in effect, that the most telling form of criticism, in a culture in which the activity of criticism has itself been assimilated to therapeutic purposes, may turn out to be silence." (Revolt of the Elites, 220).

The larger point is that there are many of us who use this forum to offer criticism and ideas of our own who have not been financially supportive of First Things, which includes myself (and my financial situation is no excuse), and for those of us who fit this category, perhaps the best alternative is what arty suggests: silence.

I think Gil nailed it. Think all of the FT readers have helped this site to grow. The biggest support that we all can give is to come here day after day to make the difference.