Dear MNHQ, I didn't see all the problems kick off over poor Revjustabout...

[georgimama]

but I would be grateful if you could tell me that you have at least given serious consideration to banning the posters who were harrassing her.

Thank you.

okay, sorry to break up the party but I think we have a suicide risk here and we need to find out if anyone is near her

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/688288-I-well-and-truly-want-to-quit-I-need-to

onager - yes they can. But if you are not a rev then your words are not endorsed by the CE, so they are your own words, not the words of an organisation .

If the man who came into our church on Sunday in great distress, shouting to God to 'end it now', weeping at the altar had been able to speak to a priest, although it is only 'counsel' and not 'professional advice' I imagine that would have been more help to him than anything a lay person could offer - he came into the church seeking help from a priest because he saw that as a closer link to God. Vulnerable people often do seek out a priest for help in that way. And it's not fair on justabout or MNHQ to expect that to happen online. Which is why lawyers/doctors will typically say 'make sure you see your own lawyer/doctor for advice on your own particular case.'

And IF justabout HAD been a fake, then vulnerable people COULD have been misled, and the deacon being impersonated could have been in serious trouble. SO worth checking out I think.

I do understand how the church works - I work for it!

Hello all,
We've had a handful of mails suggesting we're shameful, weak and the like, so maybe best to respond here to clarify and save our weary fingers.

We did not suggest the Rev changed her name because of the personal attacks on her but because we are uneasy at anyone setting themselves up as an expert on MN in a way that suggests it official/sanctioned by us.

As we've explained some posters setting themselves up as official MN experts doesn't sit particularly well with our philosophy. The Rev had talked about Mumsnet as her ministry and she undoubtedly gives great support and advice and we very much trust she will continue to do so, but we don't want it to seem like we at HQ have appointed her as chief spiritual adviser or anything like that. After all, we're not Bishops!

We specifically discussed waiting a few weeks before name-changing, so it didn't seem like it was in response to the questioning of her validity. She agreed that dropping the Rev after a suitable gap was a sensible plan when we first mooted it. I guess she had a lot to get off her chest however (understandably) and couldn't wait. And we can see why that it looks like we're caving a bit but whilst the name-change is obviously related it's not a direct consequence of this. The direct consequence was deleting the offending posts and re-iterating our troll policy.

We hope that makes sense.
Best,
MNHQ (aka shameful weaklings )

sophable, since it was me who used the phrase 'tarred with the same brush' I will assume you were directing your questions at me and will answer.

"are you objecting loudly and vociferously on the threads on moldies about the rev, both that night and subsequently?"

No I have not posted loudly, vociferously or otherwise. I have not seen any such threads on moldies, maybe because they don't exist or maybe because I have not been on the PC much recently.

In any case, I have no real interest or opinion in the matter. I have read these threads on MN because they have sat high in active convos all day, I have posted once briefly (as you know since you practically quoted me) as I am pissed off that yet again this has turned into a 'them and us' style argument which truly baffles and saddens me.

"are you shouting, come on no narniagate, what are you doing, we are on moldies, forget what's happening on mn?"

No, because I rarely shout and I think you know that. I have however agreed with people who have indeed posted such a sentiment.

By the Goddess I can honestly say I have seen no mutterings about you whatsoever.

I can see your point Justine.

But do you know anything about NewAmazingBeginning and she has posted some very worrying posts recently, the last being basically a suicide threat

But she isn't a fake tortoiseshell. So i don't get your point.
I grew up in a vicarage. I know about vulnerable people. But they cold latch on to anyone here, anyone that took their fancy.

And i really don't agree that a vicar's words are endorsed by the CofE. There are many, many rebels within the church [not saying rev is one] There is room for robust dialogue and disagreement within the church.

I never thought she was the resident priestess anyway, just a good poster.

Hmm I have posted quite a few times in geeky....maybe I should stop before anyone gets the idea I'm an employee.

There is one thing I find slightly odd. And please don't shoot me, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but.

According to someone on one of these threads (sorry I have no idea which) the rev does not currently have a congrigation of her own. But Justine just reiterated that she refers to mumsnet as her ministry.

I'll be honest I find that strange. Why does she not have a congrigation? How has it come about that rev has essentially taken on the members of a website, none of whom she has ever met or spoken to before she joined, and encouraged them into her worshipping threads? (I am somewhat baffled as to how one can reflect on the internet).

I don't care whether the rev is a rev or not. Equally I don't believe in the houding of someone in the way she has clearly been hounded.

But I do find the whole mumsnet being her ministry element a bit odd and a bit disturbing tbh. And it's something I wouldn't want to be associated with or want anyone I knew to be associated with, because people are far more easily led on the net than in rl.

ruty - the point about being a fake is that it is right to question these things, because she COULD have been a fake.

I agree with you, wannabe. Sometimes I'm very surprised at how some MNetters seem to worship others. It's bizarre. Would it happen in RL?

And I didn't see what happened to Rev either. Was it mean? There's a lot of mean on MN too but a lot of great folk.

I don't think she has said "Mumsnet is my ministry!" but (like any christian would) she sees it an extension of her ministry - and as she is in the ordained ministry (or in similar therapeutic environments), if she is worried about advice she is offering she will discuss that with her supervisor

Deacons don't have congregations - that is a job for a few priests and they are usually referred to as incumbent parish priests

They also often do other things such as study leave etc.

Wannabe the Reflection threads are just that - reflection rather than debate. They are there for all to read if you are confused.

ok look justabout posted as justabout for ages. then i was talking to her offline and said it was a shame there wasn't an online church run by someone like her. Then she thought about the Reluctant Worshippers topic, where she asks a different Mnetter to lead a reflection each week. these have been very good and have included reflections by Lulumama and SGB, and have brought many people into very interesting discussions.

Plenty of ordained people don't have a congregation/parish at all times.

right to question tortoiseshell, not right to attack and be abusive.

No one worships her WW for goodness sake.

and the reflection threads ime are great.

I've said this before - a Christian seeing an area as their 'ministry', simply means an area in which they feel they are serving - you know, generally being kind, loving, truthful and all that sneaky Christian stuff.

In that sense, I've seen MN as one of my areas of ministry for ages. Like many of my other areas of ministry (my family, my actual church, my local community) it gives back to me too. I very much doubt Justa sees things any differently (you know, like a psycho maverick vicar, picking up unknowing congregants as she goes...)

How utterly charming. "Close the door on the way out."

Is Mn only for people who agree with each other? I posted my impression of this site. I have visited other areas and have posted there. However it is worrying that, should I question someone on something they have said/claimed, I could be accused of harassing them. If I reveal that I post on another closed site (which I do and several email lists), will I be required to fuck the fuck off??

So is this my welcome? If I, as someone looking for a friendly, helpful site, indicate that this thread, and apparently others, make this site appear to be bitter, etc., I am merely shown the door?

although I don't imagine there is any legal comeback, I do think that religious people look to a religious authority for guidance, and therefore would perhaps be more likely to seak guidance from someone who was a legitimate rev than someone who had read the bible and thought they knew all about it.

Therefore if the rev proved to be a fake, it might shatter their reality somewhat?

Wannabe, I'm no expert on the church, but getting promoted to a Vicar, Reverend whatever wouldn't mean immediately getting assigned a parish would it. Anyway I think Rev is still the lower rank rev.

And why am I defending Rev ffs? because while of course all religion is fake you can still get nice religious people and she seems to be one of them.

so it's just an amazing coincidence that your concern about the Rev using this title, and the attacks on her, have coincided then Justine?

Don't patronise us by expecting us to belive that.

This 'suggestion' to the Rev is a result of these threads attacking her.

Can you assure us that you wre going to ask the rev to do this anyway, before these attacks started?

I find being expected to belive in coincidences such as that, and that PPh just happened to appear on the gaza thread at the same time as Enid, as ludicrous.

By asking Rev to change her name directly after these attacks, suggests I'm afraid that she has been somehow complicit in them or asking for it.

And yes, I said it before, and I'll say it again, I find that sort of capitualtion to malicious attacks, shameful and weak.

And you can wink all you like about it.

I'm speaking as - unlike Custardo - someone who can't adopt a "TheRev" prefix without causing major confusion ...

I'm sure my wife is intentionally staying out of here. I don't know as I'm at work and checked before leaving (oh, was about 6pm - it's not anymore).

To reiterate what morningpaper has said, it's perfectly acceptable for a deacon in the anglican church to be "rev". Indeed, it would be very unusual and look odd for anyone post-woman's ordination not to be rev ... the only people I know of who are titled deacon as anglicans are women who were denied the ability to be priests earlier in life. (There are some rare cases where people are only ordained with the intention to be a deacon - I understand they normally only take deacon as a title as there's no intention to subsequently be a priest.) For what it's worth, I find the anglican church's number of different titles quite baffling, and anyone else in that boat has my sympathy.

My explosion on the thread which blew up was due to an argument that there was only one way to recognise the holocaust. My robust language - for which I apologise to the recipient - was because I was very angry about at the suggestion that anyone that who had family killed would be able to remember their names. As I'm in that position and can't (too many people dead, and those left really not able to talk), I felt that this went waay beyond what was acceptable ... it was a personally touchy issue and I swore. I regretted it, and asked for the post to be removed. As a man on a majority-female board where people have suffered some quite horrific domestic abuse it was not an appropriate action. I therefore also apologise generally to all those viewing it, and for subsequent references to it which may also cause offense and hurt. Provocation was not a good enough reason to call someone a b * * * * in here!

There was a suggestion earlier - and on the initial thread - that there should be a "health warning" on the religion board. I know that justabout thinks that it's a good idea (and has said so in here) because you don't know what loons are out there - we can all think of cases where people purport to be something they're not to general ill-will or ill-effect. Again, justabout did not do this - she used the title she is professionally entitled to use pursuant to her training & letters - given some of the threads she is involved in, anything else is probably a little misleading when she's posting on the r/p/s threads.

Please - everyone - ordination does not remove the ability to form one's own opinions and make mistakes. I know, I live with her!

Two points of clarification:

1. Someone above stated that she was a representative of the church. I really don't think she would make this claim - at least no more than anyone else who would class themselves in that particular body. She is someone who has been honest about her background though and feels that there are a lot of people here who could do with support. Whilst that's not unusual, she decided to be honest about her background and the oversight she receives because of this. Given that potential for additional problems that it can (for some appears to) cause, I think that's been proved to be wise.

2. Contrary to Eniddo's comment above, justabout did not claim that all posts were checked by the church. She did claim that she received supervision. A supervisor is an overseer, not a checker of each item. As such, she was not making false claims.

I think it would be nice if some of the discussion just simmered down a bit. From MY perspective, in the longer term very little about names matters too much and I don't think we should get too worked up. (I would say that, as I don't really believe in 'professional' ministry!) Getting rl contact with a threatening overtones is survivable too, although it's still very unsettling and I would ask that we see no recurrence!

For anyone who wants to judge the quality of my wife's posting, this weeks' reluctant worshipper's thread was about adultery . Just be aware - username notwithstanding - that she's a reverend and not that reluctant a worshipper .

Befoire you remark on the "ministry" of justabout, perhaps you should actually read the reluctant worshippers threads. I'm not sure you've got the right end of the stick there at all.

MrJustAbout, I'm afraid if she is posting as a Rev, and IS a rev, then she is representing the church's view. I am pretty sure that would be the church's position, and certainly the interpretation of many church-goers.

tortoiseshell are you seriously saying then that she shouldn't let anyone know she is ordained and shouldn't run the reflection threads?

On most topics when two revs make the news, they're typically disagreeing - neither of them has the right to say that their views represent the church. How can they, when they don't typically agree?

All Christians are supposed to represent the church. Some believe that they are called by God to do this and are acknoweldged to by others in the church. There might be a difference in role, but there's no more or less a responsibility as far as I'm concerned. (With the caeveat that I'm not a good representative ... I really am a reluctant worshipper.)