The following is found on the RevGals homepage:
Ring Membership Guidelines
Membership in the RGBP webring is open to bloggers who are:
1. Women clergy, women church professionals, and women religious, or those discerning a call to Christian ministry.
2. Women or men blogging pals of (1).
3. All committed to building a supportive online community for women clergy, women church professionals, and women in religious life.
4. You must be an active blogger for the previous three months in order to join.
The RGBP webring reserves the right to refuse membership to anyone whose blog would be disruptive to the community or does not fit within the categories described above.
Now, this is Mags: I have a question: what does it mean to be "disruptive"? Does it mean to express views that are contrary to those of other webring members? If so, isn't every single one of us "disruptive" at times?
14 comments:
I wondered about that too.
Heck, if it weren't for my disruptive foremothers, would I be going to seminary? :)
But, if I had to guess, there wer some people "disrespectin'" (as we say in Philly). And that is not the point of RGBP.
Hey Amy, if you click on my word "disruptive" you'll see that someone has been booted for describing herself as polyamorous.
Polyamory is not my dish of tea, but I thought this was an inclusive webring, and I am very disappointed.
Mags
I'm asking the same question. I love our group, and I'm profoundly disappointed.
Thanks, Mags; my own post about Kate's expulsion is now up as well. It was indeed quite a contrast when someone who was quite rude about the FF post last week, actually disrespecting people, received only a warning. Kate, who has been nothing but positive and constructive on her own blog and in commenting on others, was expelled without warning for her relationship status (a committed relationship with two men, btw, not any kind of open marriage. Kind of the biblical model of marriage, actually).
I am really surprised to learn this. I do have to say, though, regarding the other disruption, that I found the rude anonymous comments about the Revgal leadership much more disruptive than Rhiannon's original use of the "A" word, which was in poor taste, but at least she signed her name.
Where the hell have I been? I'm away on vacation for 2 weeks, and miss THIS?
Hmmm. Seems wierd that lines a drawn. GLBTQ are welcome but not the polyamorous.
Oh, for crying out loud! Let's not do this 'you're in and you're out' on this blog. I just have too much of that going on in my Church to have to put up with that on RGBP! Mags I am with you!
Dear Mags,
You might not call it a catfight (I wouldn't either) but my Sr. Pastor did and will again. It's hard to be a clergywoman in my denomination (not to be disclosed) as well as in my geographical location.
A wise woman does not give them any ammo. Hense my removal of my comments from the group blog and my commenting anonymously.
My ordination came with far too many wounds for me to have to forfit over a kerfluffle like this.
Anonymous, I grieve for all of us who must hide. I do understand. Thank you for sharing your struggle to live with integrity.
Peace,
Mags
Perfect way to express questions I was having when reading of this for the first time this morning. Agree with comments about differentiation of what is disruptive and response to both.
Feeling. very. sad. Had so hoped that RGBP was truly a place of radical "inclusivity" Silly (totally hetero/straight) me!
Thanks Mags. I wondered about this as well -- and it did make me go back and reread these words of our covenant. Stumps me, it does.
Apologies for waiting so long to comment here...
Thanks for posting your perspective, Magdalene. And thanks for the support from commenters, too.
Pastor Anonymous, I appreciate your point of view on this. I don't agree, obviously, but you know what? That's okay.
Post a Comment