Crossroads for FaceLift at Signposts02?

Is this the cue for the Last Post to be played on a morbid trumpet? It seems I’ve outlived my welcome here at Signposts02, according to some commenters on groupsects.

Greg the Explorer, who is a sporadic commenter here, made the observation:

‘Isee also that Signposts 2 is not happy with this group of Danny lovers! They really should change te name of their blog – they don;t have a blog that is a shado of the original signposts and they actually insult it’s memory by assoicating themsleves with it’.

I am unable to respond on groupsects, being banned, so I dropped Greg a line, now possibly in moderation, on his blog, as follows:

Hi Greg! All the best with your blog.

I read this on groupsects, and wanted to respond, but I’m banned. You said:

‘I see also that Signposts 2 is not happy with this group of Danny lovers! They really should change the name of their blog – they don’t have a blog that is a shadow of the original signposts and they actually insult it’s memory by associating themsleves with it.’

Which may or may not be true, but I’ll take it as a reasonable criticism. I’m sure you’re very disappointed with what happened to Signposts, as I was, having just entered the blog a few weeks before it closed. But they were right to close down, as long as Lance was being what he was, there was a real danger of litigation, which was clearly their greatest fear.

Thankfully he has toned down and is far more civilised on his present blog, although he still comes close to the mark on occasion, in my opinion.

But as for insulting Signposts, how can that be a fair comment? Things move on, according to personnel. You have every opportunity to bridge the gap by posting on Signposts02. I suggest you contact speckandplanks, and find out how to contribute. He is still overseeeing the blog, although he doesn’t comment as much, or put up posts.

I expect you’re beef is chiefly with me, since I seem to be doing most of the posting at present, and you are less than empathetic with my Christian outlook. After all, I’m a Pentecostal, and I actually like some of the people and ministries you take exception to. But, rather than complain about the direction Signposts02 has taken, why not action your thoughts by posting something which will stir people up?

The way I see it, a blog should be allowed to continue as long as there is a community, however large or small, that is willing to contribute, and thus far, most posts have a reasonable response quota.

But if you’d like to see a different approach to some of the posts there, then I have placed the ball squarely in your court.


Then, not knowing this, obviously, RP added the following on groupsects, clearly in reference to my contributions:

‘Greg, the only commenter there who’s unhappy with this group is the usual one. That one is also almost the only one doing posts now. The blog should probably be renamed after him. Its my fault, since I originally gave him the power to author, in a spirit of non-ownership of that online community. Now that Lance is allowing comments here, that blog has done its job in allowing that community to chat somewhere in the meantime. Email any complaints to S&P, who is the administrator, and the only one with the ability to change things.’

Now, this discussion may or may not continue over at groupsects, much to the delight of Lance, if it continues in this vein, I imagine, but, nevertheless, I will put myself in the hands of regular commenters here, and let you decide my fate.

In fact it seems that moves are afoot to have things terminated one way or another as I write.

But first I’ll say that the main reason I have continued to post here, is that this blog has threatened, a few times, to die completely. I may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but all I’ve done is maintained a flow, and posted honestly, according to my convictions. It is not my fault that others have not chosen to contribute on a more regular basis.

I would probably not have posted comments about groupsects here had I been allowed to contribute there, or had my blog-name kept out of discussions there, as I am unable to comment in defence of my position, or to repent if found wrong about an issue.

That is, I would not post, unless I found groupsects, as with any blog, anywhere, to have been out of order on an issue, and posted a due opinion. The day bloggers are censured for this is a sad day for commentary.

All blogs and bloggers are in the public domain and subject to comment and criticism, unless moderation is applied. Here, there is no moderation per cé, so comments are open and relatively free. Groupsects has the luxury of a moderation system which can cut out comments at the whim of the blog moderator. In short, it is well defended already against controversy in its own right, but should be subject to reasonable criticism, like all sites, and all posts, including mine, on other blogs.

I expressed my position on Signposts02 in my earlier comment to Greg, who now claims that this has become a counter-site for groupsects, which, if anyone comes here regularly will attest, is untrue.

I have, in fact, recently, added three posts, including this one, directly referencing groupsects, out of many posts I’ve personally added on a range of issues. One post criticising the thread, not the post, of a groupsects post. One! And two, including this one, which is really a reply to Signposters, not groupsects, in response to comments made about FaceLift on groupsects, without right of reply!

If you feel I should go, I will. Just say the word, or ask S&P to pull the plug. It would be a great victory for Lance, of course, as he would be allowed to continue his assault on Pentecostals and Pastors virtually unchecked, and with the backing of the residue of ex-Signposts contributors.

I don’t think that was ever the intention of the original Signposts either, and would be an extreme position they would never condone or support. 

But that is not really my problem. I am not the blog-master at Signposts02. I am a person who has been given the privilege of posting opinion, for which I am grateful to RP and S&P. I don’t see why RP or anyone should be expected to apologise for this. In fact, I think she should be applauded for allowing herself, at one time anyway, to have that kind of refreshing openness to a variety of opinions. Or should we only have one kind of argument or opinion on this kind of site, and complete agreement in all comments?

One other thing, should I be axed, or this blog deleted, simply because I post here, or have criticised aspects of groupsects modus operandi, the argument against censorship or expulsion of members with a contrary opinion by Senior Ministers of large churches would be forever lost by those who champion sites like groupsects, especially in view of the fact that I have only ever given my personal opinion, and that Pentecostals should be allowed a defence of their position without fear of exclusion or expulsion by those who disagree.

I leave it with you…

29 thoughts on “Crossroads for FaceLift at Signposts02?

  1. This is a good idea FaceLift. I think we should all vote and based on that you can make your decision.

    Note that if we all vote that we would prefer you to leave, I dont think that constitutes banning you. You are still able to make up your own mind on the issue.

    Also, I dont think anyone should feel they need to give any reason for their vote. I think we all understand that we think differently and that it is causing difficulty in communication. I dont think it is appropriate to argue or discuss the vote once its made.

    So for my vote, I think you should go. What do others think?

  2. Why don’t you and Lance just create 1 blog like the old Signposts. These new blogs are nowhere near as good and most of the posters have disappeared.

  3. what?



    Have you all gone mad? FL is not the devil incarnate!

    Why do you all want him to push off? What has FL done that is so offensive?

    FL, stay. I might not agree with you on tithing. I might not agree with you on Hillsong and CCC. However, that does not give me the right to discard your fellowship or to even suggest that you are not my ‘sibling’ in the Lord.

    Has Jesus rejected FaceLift? He’s still in Jesus. So, even if we don’t like FL, we are COMMANDED to AGAPE FaceLift.

    Isn’t it time we grew up?

    Shalom. (even though I am exasperated at some opinions encouraging exclusion of one individual 😡 )

  4. Once again this blog becomes not about the issues of the church etc… but about FaceLift.

    I didnt want to discuss the reasons here, because thats what FL wants. Suffice to say there are a lot more people who have decided to leave directly because of FL’s words and actions.

    They have left quietly, with no post to announce it designed to create more controversy.

    I expect FL now to come on here and add more fuel to the fire, so this thread becomes a farce.

    Lets make it simple and keep it at a vote. You asked, we answered … whats so bad about that?

    Looks like its 1 each.. who else?

  5. I haven’t left – the issues posted haven’t caused me to comment. However I visit and read, it’s encouraging to know there’s other thinkers out there, who are sheep not goats.

  6. I don’t have any issue with FL having his opinion. I do not hate FL, and regard him as a Christian brother. That does not change the fact that his dominance on this blog has changed its direction from what it was in any of its previous forms.

    This blog becomes a reflection of FL and his views, with a number of people including myself just reacting to his more exaggerated or outrageous comments.

    He has driven numerous commenters away. People who may have come here to hear a voice that understands or is willing to discuss issues that they have at church – without hating the church – will now find a dominant voice more concerned with protecting the status quo. This site is no longer supportive towards those whom it once may have assisted somewhat.

    If this is to continue, it should be recognised as such, and perhaps the site renamed. It is misleading to continue to call it signposts, as Greg the Explorer said.

    It is not practical to change its name now though.

    I am talking with S&P and I’ll post up later today some suggestions. No one is considering deleting the site, by the way, because before this hijacking, there are numerous good threads that people are still visiting.

    FL – its not about banning you. Its about preserving the original intent of this place to the extent possible.

  7. OK – have had initial discussion with S&P. S&P has asked me to speak on his behalf as well, for now. Based on that, and on past discussions about the future of this blog:

    No-one wants to do any of the following:
    – ban FL (see – we love you, brother)
    – delete this blog
    – start a new signposts03

    Re a name change – its just impractical; the domain name can’t be changed, even if the title you see when you get here can be.

    BUT we do wish to make a request of Facelift:

    Please voluntarily desist from the kinds of posts that are in conflict with the general intent of the community here.

    This would include:
    – articles having a go at the groupsects site
    – articles having a go at community participants on the groupsects site eg: the Danny Nalliah thread participants
    – articles criticising the critics of megapastors/megachurches (unless they are guilty of some kind of illegal behaviour in their misguided enthusiasm), prosperity doctrine, tithing doctrine
    – please do not post articles _promoting_ tithing, prosperity doctrine, or hierarchy/obedience etc

    This is because most of us here are here because we _are_ critical of aspects of these things, and want somewhere to discuss it. It is incorrect for this site to give the impression that the majority of this community supports these things.

    – please do not post articles that would be offensive to people including articles critical of victims of church mispractice. This is not because we regard victims as perfect; rather it is because it does not help a healing or reconciliation process.

    If you wish to do any of these things, please start your own blog, just as Lance started his blog. But you can reference your blog from here. I am sure people will read it.

    That way, however, your views will not be taken as a reflection of this community.

    Please note: we are _not_ requesting that you don’t post comments relating to these things here (yet) – just that you don’t author articles re these particular things on this particular site.

    Please let us know if you can agree with this.

    (These things would apply to all authors here, not just FL.)

    The one extra thing I may ask S&P to do, is to add a tagline under the ‘Signposts02’ title, explaining that this is not the old signposts, but a continuation of discussion by members of that community, and others who’ve joined since.

    Finally, if FL agrees with this, I will draft up a basic code of behaviour for the site for us all, based on the above, mostly for authors, but perhaps also addressing comments as well, for comment. I will keep it as minimal as possible, and not too restrictive. The idea would be to preserve freedom of speech, while maintaining the initial emphases of this blog community, and to ensure that discussions can continue to be vigorous, but reasonably respectful.

  8. Some of you still know me.

    I am anti-prosperity teaching, anti-tithing, anti-charismania/new-age (although I am pro charismatic!)

    I always saw signposts as a place where questions could be answered, robust debate could take place, points of view aired and broken, hurting, abused, damaged brothers and sisters could come and find kindness, a refuge and a place of healing and rehabilitation.

    Having only recently come back after Lance closed down the previous signposts2 blog, I maybe have a point of view that is different from many others.

    I come back and who is doing most of the posting? FL.
    Who is doing nearly 50% of the commenting? FL.

    Whose fault is it? It everyone’s fault. FL was allowed to author posts. If people don’t contribute, then the balance inevitably shifts. Once Lance starts up another blog, people drift over to that and don’t come back here.

    While I love Lance, I don’t want to go to his blog. He pulled the plug on the last one without warning. Now he only allows a limited number of people to post (essentially those who will agree with him) and that’s up to him. I was very disappointed when signposts2 disappeared.

    While I haven’t read everything FL has posted, and I am not saying he’s right or wrong, please just remember what Jesus said “out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks”. How we treat each other and how we speak to one another reflects our character.

    “I’m not what I could be, and I’m not what I should be but praise the Lord, I am not what I was.”

    This blog is what YOU make it. Don’t just leave it to FL. Debate him, pray for him, and while you are at it pray for Lance too. You can also choose to remember me in your prayers as well 🙂

    If people are hurting, then raise issues, problems and difficulties in the blog. We also need to hear good news as well. So if you can, post good news stories too.


  9. Hey Bull – the plug will not just be pulled with no warning. Regardless of anything else.

    Re authorship – authors here are currently S&P, wazza2, me, Heretic and Facelift. Facelift has contributed some good stuff.

    I currently haven’t much time. S&P is taking a break – he needs to spend some time focussing on other things to get back in balance. Facelift has the energy and interest to post stuff. Teddy used to give us articles, especially when Todd Bentley was doing his thing; Heretic actually became too frustrated with it all but has things he’d like to post.

    If you’d like authorship privileges, email S&P at the address on the welcome page.

    It is true it is what we make it. That is one reason for guidelines re authorship. Asking anyone who posts articles to stay within the guidelines will preserve the original intent to a greater degree. This is quite different from banning anyone.

  10. BTW – I posted a good news story only a week or two ago (titled ‘Something Beautiful…’). No one commented, so I don’t know what anyone thought – but there you go, sometimes we do find something rather wonderful, in with all the rest.

  11. Clarification: By ‘original intent’, I meant the original intent of this current blog, not the original intent of the original signposts site. That was run by two pastors, and their work cannot be duplicated.

  12. “Don’t just leave it to FL. Debate him” Bull

    Been there done that. Unfortunately I don’t want to engage in debate of that type now that I have experienced how futile it is.

    There is no life in it. No love.

  13. Hello. It’s been a while.

    The original signposts was about the emerging church. The idea of an emerging church was quite fascinating although the language, terms and ideas, seemed overly intellectualized and exclusive. Still, Signposts managed to include as debatable just about every aspect of Christianity, every subject seemed to be on the table and that was good.

    Now Facelift, I’m a lurker so my voice probably doesn’t count however I have an opinion. I hope you don’t take this too offensively. Some of your posts just sound like you’re whingeing. Those gripe/whinge type of posts are a bit boring. Some of the others are not too bad but I tentatively agree with the drift of RP’s comments.

    On the positive side I think it’s good to have dissenting voices and FL’s best contributions have been in the comments, although he was sounding practically manic recently over the Danny Nalliah, threats, blah, blah, etc.

    So yeah, don’t whine because it’s boring and mix it up a bit. You can have uplifting posts and examples of true Christian charity as well as breaking illusions. Pull down the high and mighty hypocrites, expose the superstitions, showmanship and abuse in churches. Pass a more critical eye over pentecostal churches and the kinds of shenanigans that go on there to bring the blog back to a place where those abused feel understood and not condemned, where we’re all enlightened a little, the church is cleaned up a bit and some fiery arguments can take place.

    I often think about Frank Houston’s CLC and what a disgusting cesspool he was running with pastors aloof and seemingly in the know about the spiritual and sexual abuse/manipulation of congregates like a team of predators while the false prophecies flowed and the illusion of “great leaders” flourished. They called him Bishop. What a disgrace. So posts that help pentecostals open their eyes to potential abuse/manipulation would be very helpful to all pentecostals. Posts that expose the dangers of personality worship or that show how easy it is for leaders to con and abuse sincere, Jesus-loving Christians will help people. Often christians, pentecostals in particular, are so in love with Jesus and so committed to their churches and so protective of their pastors that they can’t see the abuse right in front of them. Sometimes they can’t see it even while they are being manipulated and abused, they just can’t believe it because it hasn’t entered their consciousness that the pastors they love, admire and hold on a pedestal would ever use them for their own selfish purposes. Obviously I’m not talking about all churches or all pentecostal churches and having to qualify that even once is very boring.

    So, that’s my opinion anyway.

    BTW, RP, I read that good news story you posted, the football team one. I thought it was a great story, encouraging, touching. Thanks.

  14. Really you’re saying that unless I adopt your perspective I have no right to post?

    I want to thank you for being kind, supportive and honest about this, but I can’t deny my own convictions simply to be able to contribute. How could that be in any way honest to myself or to you?

    wazza2, it’s never been about me at all, but about the future direction of this blog, as you can see. Sometimes we have to ask the hard questions to progress.

    My contribution was being criticised from the comfort of another blog, and the question was on the destiny of this site, so I raised this issue so it could be discussed amongst adults, and I would have hoped, brothers and sisters in God. How else do we face things in life? Isn’t it supposed to be face to face, not from behind one another’s backs? I’m offering resolution.

    No one should be made to vote another person out. I think the general sentiment is that I don’t fit your idea of what is required for posting, although a couple of you think I’m OK.

    Tell me, heretic, honestly. If I stop posting would you return and contribute? Are there others lurking who would return and contribute if I stop posting?

  15. Thanks rotationmethod, that was positive. Our comments crossed over, so I wasn’t addressing you in particular. I was responding to RP’s conditions, which I respect, but would find overly restrictive, and wazza’s earlier appraisal.

  16. You’re welcome FL. I’m glad you received it that way. I’m sure you’ll all work it out and come to some arrangement.

    Maybe if you stopped responding to Group Sects in posts and tried not to answer criticisms there with posts here on this site, that would be a good start. No-one likes being banned but I don’t really want to read about your blogging woes or how others are talking about you. I can understand that it might be frustrating but it’s your personal business i think and it makes this blog more like your personal blog.

    I don’t think you should change your convictions without strong motivation but RP makes a good point about the signposts community in relation to some of your posts. Your perspective is mostly that of detracting or denouncing the views held by the majority of what was the signposts community. That’s fine in the comments threads and most would accept that but when the actual posts are antagonistic toward the views of the community then something has gone wrong. Challenging posts from time to time might be fine but when visitors arrive here and read posts that are as RP put it, “in conflict with the general intent of the community” then it seems like the detractor has taken over and the blog takes on an entirely different perspective. It begins to espouse the views that it’s own community are deeply critical of. Which is not generally the way it works. Hope that makes sense. Anyway, you’ll work it out.

  17. Heretic : “There in no life in it, no love”

    I’m hesitant to fuel another debate, but I’d like to say what I have experienced. FaceLift is a Pastor who is in dialogue with many of the Pastors being criticised in this forum. I have a memory of him talking about Danny Nahlia’s ministry coming to his church, which is why I pushed him about it in the other thread. He has discussed specific allegations with some of the Pastors concerned. He is sympathetic to WOF-concepts and has moved in WOF circles.

    As a Pastor whose income is presumably partly dependant on tithing income, he has an interest in maintaining the status-quo. As a Pente pastor his status and position is dependent on maintaining good relations with Pente identities and organisations. This is fine, we all have biases and he is entitled to his views, but what I object to is that he didnt declare his interest in the first place.

    Why was the original Signposts2 suddenly deleted? I dont know, but I do know that a few weeks beforehand a new identity, “No Comment” started participating. Then FaceLift started to become more strident in his criticism of Lance. FL then got banned, and NoComment was very critical of Lance stating that he was un-christian, hypocritical etc. etc. Lionfish worked out that NoComment was actually FaceLift.

    NoComment then started to criticise Lance, a couple of other identities got on the bandwagon getting quite personal.. and bang Signposts2 was no more.

    He was banned from GroupSects, however turned up there as “Kong Phew”. I engaged with debate with him on there until I worked out who he was. Now we suspect everyone new that turns up of being FL.

    Does FaceLift want debate or does he want to shut down debate? If he wants to shut it down he has been extraordinarily successful. He hides it well, but sometimes his contempt shows through such as when he calls us “Perturbed” people. There have been a couple of people who have commented here who were just emerging from an abusive church situation, or were starting to question established doctrine. FL has immediately jumped on them enforcing hierarchy and linking it to their own Christian walk, or stating that they are unbalanced. For the most part he has convinced them not to continue to comment here.

    FaceLift is the person your blog warned you about.

    Yes, there is no life or love in it.. this will be my last comment about it. It is a pity that we cannot get the word out to others without it being nullified. I worry about my own children. But I guess they will have to go through the same stuff.

  18. This is a worthwhile discussion. Rotationmethod, you’ve made some eloquent points. Facelift, thanks for your honest and calm response – much appreciated. I’ll think on all this, respond further, and do some work on it later today. I’ll post here about progress.

    I think rotationmethod’s comments could be a good base for ideas for several future posts, to get the ball rolling again.

  19. “It is a pity that we cannot get the word out to others without it being nullified.” – wazza2

    That’s my concern too. I think we can work this out – I’m not ready to give up yet. We’ve seen the occasional person visit and express how they feel helped by what they’ve read here. That makes it worth persevering.

    I don’t want to react to the internal issues here in the same way a megachurch might – so it will be interesting to see if we can successfully resolve this.

  20. wazza2, I’m not trying to get into an argument with you over these issues, but you know very well that most of what you have said is speculation on your part. One of my concerns is the amount of seculation about various ministries or people which is commented on.

    I have stated categorically on many occasions that what I say is entirely my own opinion, and I represent no one, nor have I been asked to do anything by anyone from any organisation.

    When I told you Danny Nalliah had never been to our church, that should have been enough, but you continue to press. I asked you what that had to do with anything, anyway, and you did not reply.

    Stuart Robinson of Crossways Baptist was hosted in our Auditorium just after 9/11, with a number of other ministries, discussing Islam, and Danny Scott, who was then going through court proceedings in Victoria, was one of his speakers. I may have mentioned this. That is probably what you were confused about.

    Your modus operandi has been to discover who I am and what I do. Why? So you can build a case. You need to find a vested interest to nullify my arguments. It is, in fact, you who have made it all ‘about FaceLift’, and then used that uncomfortable position you placed me in to discredit me.

    I’m OK with leaving personal affront at being banned at groupsects out of the discussions, and not target groupsects inordinately, although anyone and everyone who blogs or comments should be open to criticism if they level false or unproven accusations. The truth is that groupsects has made several allegations against ministries which I know to be untrue, and which have annoyed me, but, most of the time, I have bitten my lip and shut up about it, because I know that, for some reason, most of the people here champion Lance. I expect he’ll continue in this vein, but I’ll do my best to let it go on this site, as far as posts go.

    Again you question my background, ad make sweeping statements you have no evidence for. I do have WoF roots, but why is that a problem, I also have Anglican roots, and strong connection with the Uniting Church? As I’ve told you, most of what is levelled at WoF is utter rubbish, anyway, and is based on uninformed sources. Much of what WoF says is as orthodox as Baptist doctrine. Some of it is error, and needs to be straightened out.

    How will this ever happen if the rest of the Body refuses to recognise anything to do with WoF, and immediately dismisses everything they say just because they claim WoF influence? Our church is no longer under WoF.

    I have made it clear we don’t, in our church, teach tithing as law. Why is that problem? If you are right about what you say about prosperity doctrine, the truth will be clear, and will come out, but if you are just a club which agrees famously on error which denies people the opportunity to enter blessing because you dismiss entirely prosperity doctrine as in any way valid, and rejects truth, how can that help you or anyone? Surely error or truth is tested by the Word and Spirit. Which of us has a complete handle on all truth?

    There are many other aspects of the Word you and RP mentioned which we could discuss, but I think you are set on a course, and anyone with a different opinion is viewed suspiciously.

    This whole episode reminds me of when we were in the Anglican Church, very happily settled and part of the community, new believers, led to the Lord by the Rector, holding prayer meetings and studies in our home, heavily involved in he local church, leading people to Jesus, and we went to a meeting in a neighbouring town, because we were so keen to know about the Holy Spirit, and our Pastor said we didn’t need to know right now, but, hungry for the Spirit, we drove 50k’s to these meetings, where a Uniting Church minister prayed for us and we were baptised with the Spirit and spoke in tongues, but most of all, were overwhelmed by the love of God, and saw great purpose in our lives. We were on fire before, but this was a supercharge of the Spirit in our lives. Excited, we returned and told our beloved Anglican pastor, and he immediately said, “I wonder how long it will be before you become puffed up!”, which was rather deflating, but almost expected, and we were asked, after this, to sit at the back of the church and be quiet, and he no longer encouraged the prayer meetings and studies, because now we were ‘dangerous’! To what? To his cause, and to his understanding, to his perspective of what Christianity is. We tried, but the Holy Spirit was being quenched. Oh, how hard it was to have to travel 50k every Sunday to another church which actually believed in the Holy Spirit, and in speaking with tongues, and allowed us a voice in the commmunity.

    Now you are encouraging the same response because I see some things differently through the same Word of God. You’re considering closing your community to a certain understanding, where certain voices are viewed with suspicion. It can’t work, one way or the other.

    I love the people here more than you know.

  21. FL – I’d just remind you that we are not talking about banning you from commenting in any way you please.

    We are talking about ensuring that articles posted here do not misrepresent the majority of our online community.

    There are many things that we can all discuss which are interesting and which don’t misrepresent either you or the rest of the community.

    However, it would be wrong for this site to become a voice promoting views which most of us have rejected in our walks, even leaving or changing churches in order to do so. That is no light decision for people.

    I’m going to write up a code of conduct soon. But in the meantime, I’m uncertain of your position re our request of you – you said:

    “I can’t deny my own convictions simply to be able to contribute. How could that be in any way honest to myself or to you?”

    Does that mean that you feel that you’d be unable to contribute at all under the suggested guidelines?

    Secondly, you said,

    “I was responding to RP’s conditions, which I respect, but would find overly restrictive”

    I’m sorry that you would find it that way. I think there is still plenty of room to author things.

    So – would you prefer that I ask S&P to remove your authorship privileges, still leaving you free to comment, or leave the authorship privileges, so that when you see something that is OK by these guidelines, you can put it up? (I hope this is the option you choose, but it is up to you.)

    Thanks for being honest, and for helping us find the best option forward. I believe you when you say you care about the people here.

  22. I’ll wait and see what conditions are applied to posting, and allow you and others space and time to get some posts up that are more in line with your proposals.

    The interest generated by this post could be a springboard to a series of refreshing articles which you can use to steer the ship in the direction you desire.

    Whether or not my authorship privileges are removed should be up to the authoring collective, and in the hands of S&P, who took on responsibility for this blog.

    I’m not against you or S&P adding a directive, but I can’t change my convictions, any more than I would ask you to.

  23. OK, I’ll discuss things with S&P.

    I certainly don’t expect you to change your convictions. That would be asking for hypocrisy. I don’t think anyone here would want that.

    It will take me a little time to put something together. In the meantime, people can still email me at with any contributions if you don’t have authorship privileges but would like to post something.

  24. Also, if anyone wants to suggest any inclusions for a code of conduct – email me or put them here.

    I would say that most people here value free speech, and I personally wouldn’t want to go overboard and start banning swear words etc. That doesn’t preclude adding something to cover people being deliberately and persistently offensive though. I’d hope that we can have a code that lets people still express themselves naturally and honestly.

  25. I think that reasonable guidelines would include the concept of ‘fairness’ towards posters, even if you are arguing with them.

    I would also say that we all need to carefully consider what we think our agenda is and what other peoples agenda are. Because when we read other peoples posts we will no doubt read them in the ‘light’ of perceived agendas.

    I am guilty of that myself. What I am pushing for is an arena where we can be open and honest with each other that is also a place where the hurting can come for counseling and guidance and where healing can take place. I want to learn and become a better disciple of Jesus while not putting people down but helping people up.

    I want to experience unity of spirit while we thrash out the unity of doctrine and of the faith.

    That’s my tuppence worth and I would hope that all could agree with such sentiments as a basis for putting more concrete guidelines together.


  26. Thanks for your thoughtful input, Bull. That all sounds good to me.

    I will keep things simple and put them up somewhere on this site soon. Nothing is set in stone; and I will pray about this as I do it. I’m not rushing it, since I think care is called for. Thanks everyone for your patience.

Comments are closed.