You’re welcome Gordon - and others. My apologies for it being up as long as it was; I was attending Joseph and Sarah’s wedding and chose to leave my mobile at home. It was the most unfortunate timing.

No worries at all Mark, and may God give Joseph and Sarah a long and blessed marriage.

I am still concerned about the 1 Timothy 3 question and don’t want to lose sight of it, but please don’t feel pressure to answer it in a hurry.

It’s an important matter, but hardly urgent!

Greetings Gordon,

You’ll have to forgive me if this doesn’t satisfy, but I’m holding back on my opinion at this point in time. I don’t think it inappropriate to say that recent developments spanning the last two months have brought into consideration a number of issues relating to the forums, the role of moderators being the chief one.

However the matter, for good or ill, is being considered jointly by the senior staff at Anglican Media and it would be inappropriate of me to prejudice that discussion or its decisions by airing my opinion here. I am, however, reading this thread thoughtfully and taking on board all of the opinions expressed (if ever someone wanted to play directly into the formation of policy associated with the web site now would be the time!).

I realise that to some this may sound like an artful dodge; I hope the charitable will see it as a measure of just how seriously I am taking your discussion.

Mark Hadley - 02 June 2008 01:06 AM

(if ever someone wanted to play directly into the formation of policy associated with the web site now would be the time!).

Thanks Mark.

So do you mind my asking where people should address their opinions if they want to take the matter further?

Who runs Anglican Media?

Forgive my ignorance.

I actually thought that was what people were doing in this thread Gordon ;)

That said, Anglican Media, the publisher of Sydneyanglicans.net, is governed by the Anglican Media Council, which is chaired by Bishop Robert Forsyth. The Chief Executive Officer of the organisation is Allan Dowthwaite.

You can find our contact details here.

I should note for future reference that Anglican Media is happy to receive correspondence on any issue that concerns or pleases our readers.

Mark Hadley - 02 June 2008 01:25 AM

I actually thought that was what people were doing in this thread Gordon ;)

Sure, I don’t deny it Mark.

I’m just thinking that if people were going to argue the view that these forums should be shut down and never allowed to live again, they’d hardly do it here would they. ;-)

Oh, and in case there is any confusion, I’m not planning on writing any such letter!! The work AMS does in running this show is greatly appreciated.

Mark Hadley - 02 June 2008 01:25 AM

That said, Anglican Media, the publisher of Sydneyanglicans.net, is governed by the Anglican Media Council, which is chaired by Bishop Robert Forsyth.

Oh by the way, I seem to remember that there was a Peter Cook movie in which some fellow they wanted to get rid of was made the bishop of outer space.

What are you saying Rob’s responsible for again? What’s that you say? The Sydney Anglican presence in cyberspace?

***JOKE***

;-)

Just bumping up this thread again to observe that Lionel Windsor has some comments on what godly blogging looks like.

He’s a good person to comment on it too, as his reputation for godly blog commenting is absolutely unstained.

(Hands off! He’s on the Matthias Media blog! ;-) )

a godly comment is one which is clothed in prayer for the other person—especially if that person is somebody with whom you disagree.

Lionel cuts to the heart of the issue which goes far beyond moderating this blog, to all of our postings on the net. Godliness in a medium that encourages snippy answers or a quick putdown is more often sought than found.
Does anybody here meet Lionel’s standard? I don’t.

Hi All

I’ve just caught up with this thread, and would like to make a couple of comments:

1 I often find myself on the other side of the argument with Luke - but on this occasion I agree with most of what he has said.  In particular, that the moderators task is to moderate ‘behaviour’ first of all (i.e., the manner in which we comment) and only content when there are reasons other than his/her personal disagreement (such as the racist example Luke cites).

2 My two qualifications are that, a) there will inevitably be some limits as to how far a moderator can be ‘out of alignment’ with the Diocese and still be allowed to function as a moderator - I think a broad support for the diocesan mission would be one criteria - simply because like it or not, anyone with any official role on an AMS website will be seen as a representative of the Diocese; and b) I see no problem with a person being both moderator and contributor - but not on the same thread (just as a person can be a referee and a player, but not in the same game).

3 Lionel Windsor’s comments on blogging are indeed helpful.  In this regard, I think Luke has been justified in feeling that some of his comments (on this thread) have not been properly heard or engaged with.

Regards,

Bob

Bob, I think of your three points it is really only 2b that is under question (not by me, however)

It would cause some difficulty with the ‘SA writers in the paper’ thread, which I am currently moderating and have made a number of contributions to over the years. But this could be solved by making an exception in this case, or asking someone else to take over as moderator on that thread.

Do you have a view on Dannii’s idea that moderators should be seen as ‘deacons’ in the 1 Tim 3:8-13 sense?

Thanks Bob :)

Gordon Cheng - 04 June 2008 12:19 PM

Do you have a view on Dannii’s idea that moderators should be seen as ‘deacons’ in the 1 Tim 3:8-13 sense?

I think that such an application would require some thinking through - it’s debatable that the forums constitute a congregation, and many of the parameters of congregational life that are relevant to Paul’s instruction about deacons are not necessarily present in the forums, or not in the same way (e.g., our observable behaviour falls within a very narrow sphere of operation).

Futhermore, is the role itself equivalent to that of deacon?  Perhaps in some ways, but methinks it needs teasing out.

Nevertheless, I think we could legitimately draw from the passage at the level of broad principle.  So to say something like (with apologies to the apostle to the Gentiles), “Moderators, likewise, are to be people of sincere, Biblical faith and sound Christian character” I think would be hard to argue with.  Those last six words may, of course, be proved wrong at any moment.

Bob

Here’s my 2c worth ...

Moderators will be perceived (correctly or incorrectly) by many browsing and contributing to these forums as representing the Diocese (and hence broadly endorsing Diocesan positions). Therefore I think it’s helpful if moderators are chosen with this perception in mind. If a moderator is appointed who supports a non-Diocesan position on a sensitive topic - eg women’s ordination - I believe that moderator should refrain from defending that position in the forum since by being a moderator they are in effect representing the Diocese.

Moderators need a degree of maturity to discern when discussions have contravened forum posting guidelines, but also to intervene when they’re heading in that direction with reminders (either publicly in the relevant threads or by PM) about healthy, respectful discussion. Moderators also need to set a good example in their posting style so that it models respectful dialogue and encourages forum participation. Above all, the forums need to be a safe place for those who hold controversial or divergent theological positions to be able to express and debate those positions and not feel attacked or disrespected for doing so. Allowing and fostering healthy and open debate (and sometimes criticism) is vital in maintaining church renewal and preventing us from becoming cultish.

Importantly moderators need to “be around” often - you can’t “moderate” if you’re not here.

Bob Cameron - 04 June 2008 01:30 PM

Nevertheless, I think we could legitimately draw from the passage at the level of broad principle.  So to say something like (with apologies to the apostle to the Gentiles), “Moderators, likewise, are to be people of sincere, Biblical faith and sound Christian character” I think would be hard to argue with.  Those last six words may, of course, be proved wrong at any moment.

Bob

That’s not bad, Bob, as a general statement. But it seems to me that the strength of the 1 Tim 3 passage Dannii suggests is this: that those who know the deacons are able to observe the behaviour of the individual deacons concerned and make judgements in line with the criteria listed, some of which are fairly specific and observable.

So I don’t question your general statement at all, but I think there is a reason why Paul goes further and specifically names things like ‘greed for dishonest gain’—deacons in Ephesus who drove Rolls Royces would not be excluded from service automatically, but you might ask them to open their accounts for scrutiny because of the responsibility involved.

It may well be that moderators are not deacons under the current system; I couldn’t really comment on that.