My words:

they don't want them 'imposed from above' So our challenge here is to invite ... the key players here to *agree* on the Code of Conduct (based, as .... wisely put it, on NT principles) and have a 'sideways in/ bottom up' approach rather than 'top down'... -- Shalom!

"[An esteemed friend - hereafter EF]" <> wrote in message .

Hi Rowland.

Some insights from the past of the group. The past Code of Conduct of ACC WAS based on a 'sideways in/bottom up' approach. It was crafted, approved, and submitted to freely by all who were willing to be a part of the 'experiment' in creating Godly fellowship online. (That turned out to be everyone except one).

RC:

That was not the *perception* however, and whilst I cannot verify the reality here one way or the other (I wasn't part of the tumult), as they say in counselling circles 'Perceptions are reality to the perceiver'!

EF:

But the problem with Usenet, is that people are always coming and going! After months or even years of peristent assaults of people who resented there being a Code of Conduct in place when they arrived, the people who helped create the guidelines got tired and left. So no matter what you do, there are always newcomers who resent the impression of having anything imposed upon them from the 'top down' (which if we are honest with ourselves, is the exact model of our Christ before God!). And once the perceived attack on their "personal rights and freedoms" was registered, the nit-picking of words and the personal assaults and the invalidation of witness based on past mistakes and the pride and the resentment was not far behind -- because dispite 2000 years of 'progress' we are all still infantile Christians who refuse to grow up. Rather than simply letting the guidelines stand, they became a rallying-point and a focus who's only purpose was to shift the focus off of Christ.

RC:

Depends how people *perceive* they're 'enforced' however...

EF:

I would suggest that you propose the Code of Conduct. Most points can come right from Scripture (we used 1 Thess 5 IIRC), and added the point of crossposting simply because it was a proven killer of NG's.

RC:

That's a good idea: if the *Christian* content of the Code of Conduct comes straight from Scripture, even the non-fundamentalists might be happy, eh? :-)

EF:

Later we added the recommendation to block when it became clear that there were persistent dissemblers and factious people who existed only to accuse and blame and shift the focus off of Christ

RC:

Let's face reality here: as a Usenet lurker/poster for 9 years and thousands of posts sent (and only God knows how many read!) *everyone* has the right to block posters they feel they do not need to read - and people who value their time do it all the time. However, it's the gamesmanship (and gameswomanship - now there's a word for you!) of _announcing_ who you've blocked which is problematical. I believe it's a form of saying 'I'm rejecting you and your words here and now and I want you to feel bad about that rejection.' Anyone want to deny that?

EF:

I would suggest that you propose your guidelines, then let people either recognize their godliness and submit to them, or not.

RC:

I tend to be consultative. I'll go ahead and draw up a draft version, get the wisdom of people like yourself and a few others first (whose wisdom I respect - even though all I'm consulting with don't respect each others'!), then post a version which can be open to discussion by all-comers.

EF: <> Yours in Christ,

[name withheld]

RC:

Thanks [EF]

Now let me respond to a couple of other points raised in this most interesting thread, by yourself and others.

1. [EF], if you're wanting a public, unmoderated Usenet group to have a solely 'fundamentalist' flavor you're wishing for the stars, my esteemed friend. Fundamentalists are one of 13 varieties of Christians (see http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9664.htm, ) and I for one want to have fellowship with them all. (Otherwise heaven will be too much of a culture-shock :-)! However much you and others might like to do it, you *can't* and *shouldn't* exclude others from this online community.

2. (This and the following are not addressed to yourself only EF, but to all of us): Several times I've seen the phrase 'plennary (sic) nature of God's word' suggested as part of a basic 'doctrinal stance' (my words). Now when a word like 'plenary' is both misspelt and misapplied, I for one get nervous. Obviously whoever designed that phrase didn't know what they were talking about... And whoever it was, wants to impose something they haven't really studied properly (and a phrase, moreover. which is not in the Bible) on the rest of us? You've got to be kidding!

3. I respect the spirituality and devotion of those who suggest that if only we pray all our problems will be solved (to put it simplistically, which I'm not suggesting those who make this affirmation are doing). Now listen, class: *No* , repeat *no* human or Christian group has even existed beyond the first generation that didn't need rules/guidelines/codes of ethics etc. to help 'em get along with each other. If you're wanting a group to function effectively and Christianly, there's *no* way it will happen without some (agreed - important!) guidelines. See what happened in the Catholic church where priests had no enforceable codes of sexual ethics? Last Friday America's Catholic bishops received a severe scolding from their own national review board for their 'shameful' handling of more than 10,000 'substantiated allegations' of sexual abuse against minors by 4392 priests and deacons!!!! The theology and practice of 'confess it to a priest and to God and go and don't do it again' didn't work! Back to Usenet/Christian guidelines, let me say this as straightforwardly, but as gently, as I can: people who suggest we don't need to have agreed guidelines *do* have their own. We are sharing opinions all the time here about what is appropriate behaviour. No-one is exempt from that. All a formal code of conduct does is *organize* our *already-assumed* standards into something understandable, and with which we can hopefully concur and use as a point of reference for our behavior towards one another (but not as a stick with which to beat each other, OK?).

4. I'd like to suggest that we see this exercise as a contribution to the larger Usenet community. To my knowledge it hasn't been done thoroughly yet. Out of our wrestling with these issues might come something from which other Christian groups might benefit.

--

Shalom!

Rowland Croucher

http://jmm.aaa.net.au/