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

File - respect

Expand Messages
  • faithmaps@yahoogroups.com
    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
    Message 1 of 56 , Sep 1, 2006
      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
    • snshields
      Sorry all, I ve turned these automatic emails off for future months. Stephen ... faithmaps, once a month I like to post something about respect. ... here. ...
      Message 56 of 56 , 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
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.