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.

Do you think that the Church has a single view on something?

Do you really think that there is a single official line for the Anglican church?

Even Rowan has his persoanl view and his official one, but I think that his title remains the same none the less.

Sorry, should be clearer - as people, all Christians represent the church, but our views do not necessarily do so. It's probably a bit misleading to even talk about a single church view in a LOT of areas.

So should no one reveal their professions on MN or then comment on thier area of expertise? Becacuse that is the logical conclusion of these arguments for her dropping the Rev.

Whether it's in your name or not is really a red herring here, it's poeple knowing it or not that is really the issue being argued.

MN would be a very poor place if this line were followed imo.

CreativeZen, you were the one who suggested you should leave. You were the one making the attacks. I didn't see why I should encourage you to stay when you were obviously so unhappy here. Of course if you flounced off, no-one would notice. Nothing to do with you being new, I've never before mentioned someone's newness to MN.

Just to reiterate, you are not happy here, so why stay?

Oh and tortoise - I'm also not an anglican, so I may also be missing an obscure-and-probably-completely-incorrect bit of their canon law.

yeah, Justa as a representative of the church....

...has done a bloody marvellous job, and the church should (and no doubt is) proud of her contribution.

I only wish I could say the same about my contribution to MN as a Christian.

Can I ask, because I genuinely don't know, were there questions about Rev revelaing she is a REv rumbling before the PPH et al attacks?

Or are we only having this discussion beacuse of those nasty vitriolic completly unsubstantiated attacks?

I think that's important.

No, it is not true that anything a vicar says in public is the Official View of the CofE.

The CofE is a 'broad church' that allows for a huge number of views and opinions on just about anything. It does not have any Official View on day to day message board activities and if it did, only the Bishops or Archbishops are allowed to say it or to directly appoint someone else to say it on their behalf. Other than that, it's just a Vicar/Minister/Reverend doing what they do - talking with people. The Bishops know this. They even have their own blogs these days, y'know. So unless talking with people has become a banned activity, there is nothing amiss with a vicar talking on a message board about things.

The only time a Bishop would step in is if their Vicar has behaved in an appalling way - something to make front page headlines, not just trying to open up discussion on various faiths in a public place in a respectful and sensible way.

Monkeytrousers, yes I have seen the thread.

But it's not newsworthy is it, Or of pastoral care it seems.

No, obviously I'm not saying everyone has to have the same views. What I'm saying is that if you are speaking as a priest, then you have to remember that you are representing the church. So my way of interpreting that would be to imagine you are speaking from the pulpit, possibly with your bishop there. So you have to be prepared to justify yourself.

Obviously vicars/priests disagree - for example remarrying in church after divorce. Some will, some won't. But if you speak with the authority of the church, then you also have a responsibility to the church. That's all I was saying really. And so taking your offline work into an online ministry, you have to be certain that the church is happy with this, and be prepared to be challenged on it I think. In RL a vicar can and should be challenged by their parishioners, if justabout regards MN as her 'ministry' then the same possibly applies. Obviously RL 'harassment' is never right - has she really received abusive telephone calls? Lots of people say she has, though I didn't read that from her? If so, that is definitely out of order.

Hi Nantucket,
As I said in my post the events are "obviously related" because it made us think about things, but they are not causal. If we'd thought about it/ looked closely at certain parts of the site before or after we might have suggested it earlier or before. I'm afraid we don't follow the goings on on MN religiously we tend to swerve violently from situation to situation, because we've little time for anything else. So when something like this occurs it brings the whole sitch to our attention.

And as I've said, we had a long and very friendly discussion with the rev about what had occurred whether she was ok (there was anything we could do re her own privacy and best next steps.

tortoiseshellWasMusicaYearsAgo, can you post the letter from the church explaining their position and their support for your point of view or can you explain what you are doing representing the church without their consent.

No I don't think it is Nantucket - as we've tried to explain, we love expertise - but we don't have official experts. It's against our philosophy of all posters being equal.

tortoishell i don't quite understand your point. Everyone can be challenged here for their opinions, that is the spirit of MN, robust discussion. Rev is no different.
My father [vicar] went around telling everyone who would listen that nuclear weapons were evil and we should have unilateral disarmament. That was not the official position of the church. his bishop disapproved. Should he have been made to step down?

and abusive phone calls are the only thing you think are out of order? Not the repeated personal attacks, taunting?

MrJustAbout - when you get home, please could you give your lovely Mrs a big hug on my behalf?

Although I only lurk on her reflection threads (I do not label myself as a Christian but am interested in all viewpoints) but have found many of her posts not only interesting but also very thought provoking. Not my place on those threads to comment (not sure I could find the right words to express my cloudy, confused thoughts) but read them all with care. I really value all the time and effort, thought and consideration that have gone into them and just want to say that they were worth it. I am sure that I am only one of many people out there who have read her words and found them touching us somehow. For all of those out there who are being negative or questioning stuff, please let her know that there are plenty people whispering their thanks and appreciation too x

Or morningpaper?

We wouldn't want anyone feeling like they had licence to throw their weight around and escape any consequences.

I think justify yourself is possibly a little strong, tortoise - you need to be accountable, and justabout has done this by having someone more senior than her that she talks mumsnet issues over with. The anglican church knows that she posts and does the RW thread but that doesn't make her the official god-gob of MN - and nor should it.

Justine has outlined the MN position, which I think is very wise.

Lemon - will do. Although I'm risking being locked into a building by still being her ... not sure I can get home :-)

Well, firstly, I am not posting as a vicar/reverend/deacon/bishop - I'm not one. So what I say in this capacity is MY interpretation, and I am NOT a representative of the church.

However, it is standard for an employer to have certain expectations when you are speaking as an employee. When I used to work for a very high-profile employer, one of the things they impressed on us was that an email from a work computer was as good as using headed notepaper, and as such, anything we wrote from the computer had to be regarded as 'representing that organisation'. Posting on a forum like this, saying 'I am an employee of XYZ and I think ....' could be sackable, because it was not authorised.

According to the Clergy Discipline Measure, misconduct may be alleged for four things, the fourth of which is "engaging in conduct that is unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of the clergy."

Define that as you like. It is not talking about conduct whilst in church, it is ALL the time. And as such, I think could cover 'unauthorised preaching.' I'm not saying just about WAS doing this, simply that if posting as a rev you have to be careful NOT to do this.

she is careful not to do this tortoiseshell. I have noticed she is. So?

Oops, being here

I am not revjustabout, just a bad typist rushing to get home ...

be accountable is exactly what I meant MrJA! Much better word.