If the moderators had been appointed by a single congregation I think they most definitely would be deacons. It’s more complicated because they’ve been appointed by AMS, itself appointed by the diocese as a whole.

Issue 2(b) above, isnt there some room for a loyal opposition?

Peter Kirsop - 04 June 2008 06:30 PM

Issue 2(b) above, isnt there some room for a loyal opposition?

I believe that moderators would be most effective if they remained impartial and generally avoided representing one position or another. If they do enter a discussion (apart from “moderating"), it might be to suggest a potential difficulty or contradiction in a stated position and encourage a proponent to clarify their position. By encouraging healthy discussion, presumably others will then feel safe to express that healthy, renewing (loyal) opposition.

That seems pretty sensible to me, Angus.

[edit]Peter, what do you think loyal opposition looks like?

Dannii Willis - 04 June 2008 03:09 PM

If the moderators had been appointed by a single congregation I think they most definitely would be deacons. It’s more complicated because they’ve been appointed by AMS, itself appointed by the diocese as a whole.

That’s true, it is more complicated. In some ways they are a tiny bit (a very tiny bit!) like bishops, who have all sorts of administrative power within broader structures, but no say in what goes on in local congregations, beyond what any other regular congregation member might have.

Although bishops who are members of congregations are really just regular congregation members

(not that there is any ‘just’ about being a regular congregation member!)

I think most of us would agree that it would be ideal if bishops did match up to 1 Tim 3:8-13 in their personal lives. Oh, and I think ours do, by the way!

But there would be other non-bishop people who work for the diocese that you would hope would match up to these characteristics too, eg teachers in Anglican schools.

Why not moderators of forums? Although I think that is the point you were probably making, if I’ve understood you correctly.

That is the point exactly. There may be official bishops and deacons in the diocese, but I’d suggest that anyone who’s appointed for a position of service, no matter what the size, should measure up to 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.

What do you mean by a position of service - a janitor, someone who pours tea, a provider of transport to the elderly?  I think deacon/minister in the context of the pastoral epistles requires a little more precision than that.

Yes, though in those case I’d think that only the deacon’s qualifications really apply. A bishop/overseer/elder is in some position of spiritual oversight, which wouldn’t include most janitors.

If, as I’m arguing, the moderator should be seen to be a supporter of the diocesan mission and the churches within Sydney, then you would certainly want people doing the job who understand that this mission is theologically grounded, and that the mission doesn’t just represent a crass desire to see 10% of people inside church buildings on a Sunday.

(Actually, that wouldn’t be crass so much as a mighty fine thing)

Hence

They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

is not one of those optional extras on the 1 Tim 3 list.

I don’t doubt that in the life of a blog, there is a need for humble janitorial service. If you manage to make it over to the Sola Panel blog, you will occasionally witness various glitches, generally instigated by me, before our ‘janitors’ over there quietly and efficiently remove all evidence of their existence.

But I reckon moderators, insofar as they do have the appearance of representing Sydney Anglican view, should do a little bit more than ‘janit’ (is that a word?), although I don’t think they should be bossing people around either (hence the player/referee distinction that various contributors, including me, have argued ought to be very clear in future).

Actually, if moderation gets rethought and if I was invited to be a moderator in a new regime (NB I make no rash assumptions about that!), I really wouldn’t mind being quizzed on the question of, given that I was supporting the diocesan mission, how was I going with my personal prayer and evangelism. This week, that would be a bit embarrassing. Oh well, still 2 days to go.

Gordon Cheng - 05 June 2008 04:18 PM

But I reckon moderators, insofar as they do have the appearance of representing Sydney Anglican view, should do a little bit more than ‘janit’ (is that a word?), although I don’t think they should be bossing people around either (hence the player/referee distinction that various contributors, including me, have argued ought to be very clear in future).

That’s a very dangerous argument. What “A little bit more” entails is very questionable indeed.

In any case I think that argument is flawed on a number of levels:
- The question of how moderators appear is only relevant insofar as there’s a bold red Moderator label attached to their posts, which only happens for moderators in their specific forums. The simple solution here is, as I’ve argued previously, removing the tag to eliminate any misperceptions. It’s a fascinating example of how a small design detail influences peoples perceptions, and it is one here that was only introduced in the last 6-12 months. That’s also the time the question has come up. Remove the label, remove the (mis)perception, problem solved.

- Moderators are normal members like everyone else - this pie in the sky stuff about them being near silent, omniscient, bishop-like people of impeccable decision making who read and contemplate every single thing is a nice ideal, but at the end of the day you have a bunch of volunteers who know the community, want to be a part of it and want to see it continue in good health.

- Finally, as I’ve argued before, aggressive, view-driven moderation was tried by one moderator at one time (unbeknownst to staff initially). It caused so many problems for users and staff it was stamped out pretty quickly.

As an experiment, it has been tried, and it has failed.

Actually, if moderation gets rethought and if I was invited to be a moderator in a new regime (NB I make no rash assumptions about that!), I really wouldn’t mind being quizzed on the question of, given that I was supporting the diocesan mission, how was I going with my personal prayer and evangelism. This week, that would be a bit embarrassing. Oh well, still 2 days to go.

Well, wouldn’t we all want to enjoy general support and accountability from our Christians brothers and/or sisters?

However what is lost in this discussion is what a moderator actually does.

I moderate (with Mark) the busiest forum here. Lately (as in the past few weeks), I have had to:
- Move a couple of threads (’Apocolyptic scenarios’) to dead horses
- Close & move a thread that was getting waaaay overheated (’Happy birthday Israel’)
- Move a thread about Genesis to the bible study forum.

That is it.

That is in the busiest forum here, and I don’t think Mark has had to do much in General Discussion beyond that either.

The forums seem to be going pretty well otherwise.

Why, exactly, we need a new regime with all this oversight, background checks, oaths of allegiance, continual support and monitoring etc etc etc for someone like myself (for example) who, in my role as moderator, has had to move a couple of threads and close one over the past few weeks is beyond me. Particularly when, if something serious comes up, then the AMS staff (Mark, Jeremy etc) can always intervene, and I (or Gordon, or Mark T, or whoever) can always defer to them if needs be.

I think this thread needs a reality check.

Moving a couple of threads and closing the odd one just ain’t that hard.

Also, just another quick point, the best moderators in these forums over the years have never been people with actual moderator powers in a given forum, but the actual members themselves.

This community, over the years, has functioned best when everyone keeps everyone else in line (including me!).

This idea that we can outsource everything or project everything we want onto a select few is one I’ve always tried to discourage - a community that self-regulates as much as possible (with moderator hats available for a few people if needed) is a healthy, low-maintenance community, which suits everyone.

When members are encouraging other members (inc moderators) to rethink what they’ve written, or their position, or their behaviour, or anything else that may come up from time to time, then you have a good, self-regulating environment which largely takes care of itself and allows all kinds of things to be discussed within the standards of that community.

If anything, we should *all* be more mindful of our roles as members first (again, including me), rather than fretting over a handful of people who move the odd thread.

It is, after all, the many posts that are made each and every day by all members that makes these forums what they are, not the occasional weekly (or monthly) move of a thread to DH by a moderator, say.

And I’m happy to say that, by and large, that is what this community does, which is a very good thing indeed!

Dannii Willis - 05 June 2008 03:56 PM

Yes, though in those case I’d think that only the deacon’s qualifications really apply. A bishop/overseer/elder is in some position of spiritual oversight, which wouldn’t include most janitors.

Dannii

Are you really saying that a janitor (and his wife) needs to meet the criteria for deacons set out in 1 Tim 3:8-15?  If that’s right, I think churches all over Sydney (and beyond) will need to go through their rosters in a ‘razor gang’ like fashion!

Bob

PS By ‘janitor’ I mean the physical kind, not the moderator kind - an unfortunate example to choose, perhaps, in the light of previous analogies.

However what is lost in this discussion is what a moderator actually does.

I moderate (with Mark) the busiest forum here. Lately (as in the past few weeks), I have had to:
- Move a couple of threads (’Apocolyptic scenarios’) to dead horses
- Close & move a thread that was getting waaaay overheated (’Happy birthday Israel’)
- Move a thread about Genesis to the bible study forum.

That is it.

I know the job is small, but I don’t think the frequency or scope of the task matters much. If mods are to be seen as deacons/servants (and maybe they shouldn’t be) then they should meet the standard. Remember the first deacons were waiters, and they weren’t around for too long either.

Are you really saying that a janitor (and his wife) needs to meet the criteria for deacons set out in 1 Tim 3:8-15?  If that’s right, I think churches all over Sydney (and beyond) will need to go through their rosters in a ‘razor gang’ like fashion!

Well many churches probably just hire cleaning companies, so no. But I’m sure there are many churches which appoint volunteer church members to maintain the grounds, or at least co-ordinate it. They’re deacons. As are the music co-ordinators or the “welcomers”.

Well many churches probably just hire cleaning companies, so no. But I’m sure there are many churches which appoint volunteer church members to maintain the grounds, or at least co-ordinate it. They’re deacons. As are the music co-ordinators or the “welcomers”.

I think it’s highly doubtful that a janitor would be considered a deacon in terms of the usage in the Pastoral Epistles.  And to characterise the men of Acts 6 (who are not called deacons, as I recall) as waiters is to seriouosly underestimate the nature of their role.

Thanks for the clarification Bob.

If people want to take the ‘deacon’ issue further I would suggest starting a new thread

Luke,

I think you are seriously underestimating the time Mark and myself have spent moderating the forums in past fortnight and putting out associated bushfires… it would run to many hours.

I would strongly argue against removing the red moderator tag. It is important for accountability. And I find it helpful for self-regulation - it is a reminder to discipline myself not to enter debate with people in those threads I moderate. Rather with my ‘mod’ hat on I am speaking on behalf of AMS. If someone finds that ‘hat’ too restrictive then perhaps being a mod is not for you.