Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

45403Re: File - respect

Expand Messages
  • snshields
    Sep 1, 2006
      Sorry all, I've turned these automatic emails off for future months.

      Stephen

      --- In faithmaps@yahoogroups.com, faithmaps@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Respect
      >
      > Because of the diversity of the individuals who discuss in
      faithmaps, once a month I like to post something about respect.
      >
      > The faithmaps discussion group is not a church, but church happens
      here.
      >
      > We have a pretty wide spectrum on this list from those who do not
      believe in God at all but like to talk to us folks that do to a number
      of us who not only passionately believe in the existence of the
      Judeo-Christian God but also believe that He has spoken and that
      reliably in Scripture. We are a public list and anyone is welcome to
      join as long as they understand what we're about and the parameters of
      our discussion (like any discussion list). We've been compared to
      Francis Schaeffer's L'Abri: faithmaps.org and the discussion group
      find their foundation in evangelicalism, but all from any ideological
      orientation are welcome to participate. We seek to advance God's
      kingdom thru such interactions.
      >
      > So I'll typically put my moderator hat on only when I think we are
      about to
      > stray significantly off discussion of
      >
      > "tools for navigating theology, leadership, discipleship and church
      > life in postmodernity"
      >
      > or when I see a breakdown of respect.
      >
      > **conflict and respect**
      >
      > Our discussions here are sometimes quite spirited, but collegial.
      We occasionally disagree or explore a topic from various viewpoints
      but generally we do so with mutual respect. We believe much learning
      occurs through such interchanges.
      >
      > But I'll step in if - and this is very important - I perceive that
      anyone is
      > dealing with someone else disrespectfully. We have a great
      community here and it would be sad to see it disintegrate into potshot
      land or a place of mere rhetorical positioning and grandstanding.
      >
      > I also am not anxious to see us bogged down into debate on
      > any one issue or especially emotive issues that are debated endlessly
      > and with great verve on other lists (homosexuality, abortion, etc).
      >
      > In the past on very rare occasions, I have stepped in when it seemed
      to me that discussion on any one topic on which there was disagreement
      debilitated to what I call "little motorcycle circles in the sand."
      Most of the time this is not an issue because most folks realize that
      a point can come where further discussion is counterproductive. But
      the desire to have the last word, or perhaps a passionate commitment
      to one's point of view, or other motives can subject all the 'mappers
      to endless reams of fruitless discussion, so I may choose to interdict
      or redirect such a thread.
      >
      > Failure to respond to moderator notes dealing with these matters
      subjects violators to having their posts moderated (posts coming
      directly to me for approval) or even to being banned from the group.
      Further, in an effort to stop serial violators, any faithmaps
      participant who has been addressed with moderator's notes in the past
      are subject to *immediate* moderation (all their emails will come to
      me for approval) or even being banned.
      >
      > I will always strive to act in fairness to both supposed violators
      and the group in my best judgment.
      >
      > When other differences of opinion come up, our discussions should
      drive to either
      >
      > agreement - humble people of integrity are
      > susceptible to being enlightened by others!,
      >
      > synthesis - in my experience, successful resolution often ends here,
      >
      > or a *civil* agreement to disagree.
      >
      > If you've reached a point in discussion where it seem fruitless to
      continue or you find it difficult to discuss a topic further without
      debilitating into unwarranted disrespect or sarcasm, perhaps it's time
      to withdraw from that particular discussion thread and/or opt for the
      third option listed above.
      >
      > And my mentioning synthesis does *not* imply that I believe that
      there are no instances of genuine thesis/antithesis where one party is
      right and one party is wrong.
      >
      > There is no reason disagreement and disrespect must always coincide.
      I strongly feel that we must not absolutize others down to the one
      thing on which they disagree with us. But I also see that folks often
      have a tendency to incorrectly and/or prematurely analyze
      disagreements down to thesis/antithesis without giving sufficient
      diligence to seeking either an understanding of our opposite or a
      third option.
      >
      > Working thru a conflict is often VERY HARD WORK. I would encourage
      > any interested in considering this further to read the article
      >
      > Dealing with Conflict
      >
      > @
      >
      > http://www.faithmaps.org/aboutus.htm
      >
      > This is a very busy list and I can't always read every post every
      day. If you see something posted that you believe requires my
      attention, please don't hesitate to email me directly at sshields@...
      or sshields@...
      >
      > thanks,
      >
      > Stephen Shields
      > moderator
      > sshields@...
      > http://www.faithmaps.org
      >
    • Show all 56 messages in this topic