Concerns about our forum and maybe some answers

[Jim47]

I've gotten several dozen PM's in the last couple of days with many concerns about certain mod actions and why.

First, let me say that my PM box is always open, whether you agree with me or not. I try to be as un-biased as humanly possible, and I will confess I make mistakes :sigh: all too often.

Let me start out with this. No one hates reporting people more then me, or closing threads while moderators discuss what should be done. I have tried to deal with problem and offensive posts by simply PM'ing people, and those same people reported me and then I was in trouble. Therefore when forum rules are broken, then reports and warnings have to be issued. Its quite simply a necessary part of this forums life and health. Our warnings should never be seen as personal attacks or as you committed a grievious sin and we don't want you here. They should be a gentile reminder that you broke rules and we want to make you more aware of them, so it doesn't happen again.

I enjoy readings all of yours posts here and hope that none of you get discouraged. If you do, just sleep on it and then come back again. What I do can be discouraging too, but I also feel lucky to be serving a fine bunch of people like you all here.

One of the main sources of contention has always been discussions about the more liberal churches. vs. conservative churches. I wished I had an answer to this problem, as if I did then we would hardly need a moderator here. The fact is that the main forum which is what this post lies in allows discussion between liberal and conservatives. We do however need to be respectful of each other even if we don't agree with each other.

A couple of years ago there was a big war here. There were so many flames flying around that it was hardly bearable. Things have much improved here since then. I hope we can keep working on our problems and finding better solutions.

I have worked hard to make this forum acceptable to both liberal and conservative members, and try not to show any bias. Can I ask you to also try that? We can still continue discussions, we just have to choose our words more carefully. Isn't this what Jesus would want us to do in the first place?

This was a big challange for me when I was first made a mod. Moderators are held to a higher standard and should be model posters. Unfortunately we also have sinful feelings and may get into discussions that we should have avoided in the first place. This has happened this week and I am asking you to not discuss or mention this again. I am only saying this as it was quite obvious. I've done the same thing and regretted it.

So now I am open to questions and suggestions on how to improve. If you only have complaints, then please PM me so I don't have to warn you and make for more hard feelings. :sigh:

Remember, this is to be a constructive thread. If it turns out other wise I will delete it. :wave:

[Melethiel]

Just posting to say that I still exist :P and that Jim is a great guy.

*steps out*

[Studeclunker]

Jim, I understand your position and support it. Still, we are in a religious Christian forum. Several ofthe threads that were locked today, I can understand why the one was, the other confuses me. Then on a third were warned about discussing Homosexuality. The issue really had to do with the fitness of an individual to hold authorative positions in the Church. Homosexuality, though relevant and the cause of the discussion, was quite obviously a side issue. Yet we feel stepped upon. I'm not sure how the arbritration system works on these forums. Could you please post an appropriate format for lodging a request?

[DaRev]

The problem is that the two main camps on this forum, the liberal ELCA/ELCIC and the confessional LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCA, are as different theologically as, say, Presbyterians and Eastern Orthodox. These two denominations have their own main forums, but the liberals and confessionals have to share this one.

While we do have the subforums, there is still this main one that is simply titled "Lutheran."

Perhaps the best solution to the problem (which is what my friend Jay was alluding to, although a bit overboard) is to abolish the main forum in favor of two seperate forums altogether. If someone from one camp wishes to post in another's forum, there would have to be rules of decorum that would be understood by all, just as there is between the forums of other denominations.

Sadly, the word "Lutheran" does not mean the same thing to different people, especially to those who use that word as the identity of their faith. The fact remains that we are considerably different theologically, and I really don't see how the two can be forced to share a common forum. The Methodists don't share a forum with the Roman Catholics, we shouldn't either.

That's my two cents.

How can we petition the CF powers that be into splitting this thing up?

[ctay]

I was asked to be a moderator. I didnt do it. I've got my own forums and its a headache.
I agree with DaRev

[BigNorsk]

There's no reason to abolish the main Lutheran Forum. There are already two subforums for those who want to use them. If you don't want to participate in the main Lutheran Forum, there is no rule requiring you to do so. Simply go do something else that doesn't bother you so much.

Marv

[DaRev]

There's no reason to abolish the main Lutheran Forum. There are already two subforums for those who want to use them. If you don't want to participate in the main Lutheran Forum, there is no rule requiring you to do so. Simply go do something else that doesn't bother you so much.

Marv

I have no problem doing that. In fact, I may do just that. This place isn't very friendly anymore.

But the main forum is the problem. We are not allowed to discuss much of anything without threads being locked or closed or reviewed everytime we discuss something theological. There are enough general forums on CF for general fellowship and debate. The Catholics don't share a forum with the Methodists. Can you imagine what that would be like? I'll make it easy for you. Simply read TCL.

We've had people either be banned from here for defending their theology (it's happened to me personally) or have left outright because they are not allowed to defend their theology without some sort of reprisal. Why should we have a forum that breeds such contempt?

The best way to solve a problem is to avoid causing a problem.

Again... my two pennies.

[Edial]

I think that abolishing this forum and using the sub-forums as primary forums is not a lasting resolution.

Then the liberals and conservatives will continue splitting more and more within their own ranks.

Now, I am not saying that all splits are bad. Splits need to be there, but necessary splits are inspired by God.
(Luther just wanted to discuss something and the roof caved in. :))

I think we must be careful that we do not split because we get angry and frustrated - bad divorce.
And that is never good.

Jim is doing the best he can and he is doing fine.
He has a lot of responsibilities and that could be a huge burden if carried by just one man.

We are Christians and we know that love covers multitude of sins.

Thanks,
Ed

[mnphysicist]

First, I'm taking my staff hat is off... so don't count these thoughts as any different than a regular member.

I've done a little research since Jim posted this thread, and came up with some rather interesting statistics, but first let me address differing theological beliefs. The sites owner wrote something the other day that addresses this very well. His full discussion is located at
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31609964&postcount=3

Now onto my research. The current stats show we have roughly 1880 Lutherans registered on CF. My guess it is more, as a number of us use generic icons, and as a result our denominational selections don't show up in the stat search.

Next, out of the 1880 registered members, we have around 220 who are active, ie they have made more than 100 posts since joining.

The concerning issue to me, is that we don't have anywhere near 220 active posters here in TCL. Another concern is that we really only show US Lutheran denominations in the subforums. I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but it does give me pause.

[Melethiel]

First, I'm taking my staff hat is off... so don't count these thoughts as any different than a regular member.

I've done a little research since Jim posted this thread, and came up with some rather interesting statistics, but first let me address differing theological beliefs. The sites owner wrote something the other day that addresses this very well. His full discussion is located at
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31609964&postcount=3

Now onto my research. The current stats show we have roughly 1880 Lutherans registered on CF. My guess it is more, as a number of us use generic icons, and as a result our denominational selections don't show up in the stat search.

Next, out of the 1880 registered members, we have around 220 who are active, ie they have made more than 100 posts since joining.

The concerning issue to me, is that we don't have anywhere near 220 active posters here in TCL. Another concern is that we really only show US Lutheran denominations in the subforums. I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but it does give me pause.
The reason for this is because TCL tends to be very hostile and critical to anyone who strays from the majority view in any way. This is why I no longer post here, and why many of the other Lutherans on CF do not.

[mnphysicist]

The reason for this is because TCL tends to be very hostile and critical to anyone who strays from the majority view in any way. This is why I no longer post here, and why many of the other Lutherans on CF do not.

I thought thats why the subforums were created. Ie to allow for a safe haven for differences. Yet, I guess I could see that even within those, there could be issues. Would it be reasonable to tweak the subforum guidelines? Just thinking out loud here.

[C.F.W. Walther]

The majority of confeswsional Lutheran don't post opinions. They post bibilical precepts. Why would that be controversial and why would they be critisized as such?

[Melethiel]

I thought thats why the subforums were created. Ie to allow for a safe haven for differences. Yet, I guess I could see that even within those, there could be issues. Would it be reasonable to tweak the subforum guidelines? Just thinking out loud here.
Not everyone "fits" into one of the subforums. Yes, the titles of the forums encompass pretty much everyone, but there is still disagreement within the various synods.

[Jim47]

First, I'm taking my staff hat is off... so don't count these thoughts as any different than a regular member.

I've done a little research since Jim posted this thread, and came up with some rather interesting statistics, but first let me address differing theological beliefs. The sites owner wrote something the other day that addresses this very well. His full discussion is located at
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31609964&postcount=3

Now onto my research. The current stats show we have roughly 1880 Lutherans registered on CF. My guess it is more, as a number of us use generic icons, and as a result our denominational selections don't show up in the stat search.

Next, out of the 1880 registered members, we have around 220 who are active, ie they have made more than 100 posts since joining.

The concerning issue to me, is that we don't have anywhere near 220 active posters here in TCL. Another concern is that we really only show US Lutheran denominations in the subforums. I don't know if this is a real issue or not, but it does give me pause.




Thanks Ron

I was not aware of that writing by Erwin nor that there were that many Lutherans here who have not visited TCL. Perhaps we need to change our name to something more obvious such as "Lutherans" ;) I remember when I first joined here I couldn't find the Lutherans either and I had to ask someone to tell me where they were. I was about ready to give up.

Of Erwins statement, this part is what I have been trying to teach everyone here

Do you feel that members should restrain from telling another member(s) of a different faith, what they belief is false or not Biblical?

Again, I assume when you say different faith that you mean Christians from different backgrounds. Disagreement and conflict can actually be healthy as it causes people to think and shakes us from complacency. I would not like to say that people should refrain from pointing out that another believer's point of view may be false or unBiblical - however, this can be done in a way that is civil, non-threatening, non-confrontational, polite and in an academic fashion, in order to help one another to learn more about God, the Bible and themselves. There are many ways to do one thing - we would hope that people are mature enough to have discussion and debate in an adult fashion, and not resort to ad hominem attacks.
So the answer to your question is no, but it has to be done in a way that does not directly accuse another Christian of not being a Christian - a debate over interpretation of Scripture is very different to someone calling another Christian a "false believer".

I hope that I have answered your questions correctly. Let me know if you have further questions.



Its not going against our core beliefs, nor is it asking us to accept others false beliefs. Its simply a way of communicating without the heat and flames.

As DaRev suggested, perhaps we need to carry on those conversations in our respective sub forums, but I also agree with Edial that it simply wouldn't work. As Christians we have the God given need to witness to other people and point out damaging or false beliefs. I live and breath by what God has given us in scripture and I find it sad that some have found it necessary to stray from God's direction if only because its going against what we call the ecumencial movement. and shoiwng a false brotherly love. I know that Erwin is not asking us to change our core beliefs as he said so in the statement above.

Two problems exhisit:
1. We need to find more loving ways to convey our thoughts and beliefs.

2. We need to be able to look at what others are saying without taking personal offence and then resort to flaming. In other words we need to shed our sinful pride and act as Jesus did in humility and love.

[Jim47]

The reason for this is because TCL tends to be very hostile and critical to anyone who strays from the majority view in any way. This is why I no longer post here, and why many of the other Lutherans on CF do not.


This is sad and true, and it bothers me a lot. For one I really miss your posts Mel, and those of the others that have left us. Because of this I can see that the Moderators are going to have to work harder at enforcing rule 2.1 flaming.

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).


Please everyone, think twice before you post. If you can't speak in love "and" truth, then sit on it until you can. I hate having to give our warnings, and I know that no one else enjoys it either, but as you can see from Mel's post, its necessary when it happens. We can't go on chasing off our own. :cry:

[Jim47]

Not everyone "fits" into one of the subforums. Yes, the titles of the forums encompass pretty much everyone, but there is still disagreement within the various synods.




Not only that, but there are a lot of liberal Lutherans here that enjoy the discussion and deabte we have in the main forum, and most of this is carriied on without any problem what so ever. This is a bit of a myster Heh? I see the reason as being not in people's beliefs, but in their attitudes. If brotherly love is missing when we post, then we serve only Satan.

I've said this many times before, "we will reach or convince no one if we speak out harshly or out of pride".

What Radidio said is also quite true, many of us use bible verses to prove our points. Why should this be wrong?

Ron: If you are following this thread, could you please comment on my questions above?

[Jim47]

As for everyone elses questions that I have not addressed, I'm willing to listen to suggestions. I simply don't have all of the answers.

I would like to see everyone take part in this discussion, you all count. I don't care whether you are liberal or conservative, this forum serves both and will continue to do so as long as I am on staff. :)

[Flipper]

This is sad and true, and it bothers me a lot. For one I really miss your posts Mel, and those of the others that have left us. Because of this I can see that the Moderators are going to have to work harder at enforcing rule 2.1 flaming.

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).


Please everyone, think twice before you post. If you can't speak in love "and" truth, then sit on it until you can. I hate having to give our warnings, and I know that no one else enjoys it either, but as you can see from Mel's post, its necessary when it happens. We can't go on chasing off our own. :cry:


It's funny how it seems to be up to the interpretation of the moderator on what flaming is. I got a warning for flaming on another forum on this mb, but I think I've done a lot worse here and never got warned. I don't even think I was flaming (and I was definitely being flamed), but oh well, I let it go.

This is why I don't believe in reporting others. It's all a matter of your perspective, and everyone's perspectives are different.

[Melethiel]

It's funny how it seems to be up to the interpretation of the moderator on what flaming is. I got a warning for flaming on another forum on this mb, but I think I've done a lot worse here and never got warned. I don't even think I was flaming (and I was definitely being flamed), but oh well, I let it go.

This is why I don't believe in reporting others. It's all a matter of your perspective, and everyone's perspectives are different.
It's not so much the interpretation of the moderator (although that does play a role) as the forum you are posting in. Jim and other congregational forums tend to be pretty lenient in giving out warnings and let more things go. Because of the nature of the forums I moderate in, we tend to be very strict with the rules.

[IowaLutheran]

What Radidio said is also quite true, many of us use bible verses to prove our points. Why should this be wrong?



In an abstract sense, that statement makes sense. But what I see is far too much "proof texting" which is utterly un-Lutheran.

So, yes, it is wrong, if a person cites a passage from the Bible and proclaims their personal interpretation to be the true interpretation without backing it up with some kind of analysis.

[KagomeShuko]

The problem is that the two main camps on this forum, the liberal ELCA/ELCIC and the confessional LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCA, are as different theologically as, say, Presbyterians and Eastern Orthodox. These two denominations have their own main forums, but the liberals and confessionals have to share this one.

While we do have the subforums, there is still this main one that is simply titled "Lutheran."

Perhaps the best solution to the problem (which is what my friend Jay was alluding to, although a bit overboard) is to abolish the main forum in favor of two seperate forums altogether. If someone from one camp wishes to post in another's forum, there would have to be rules of decorum that would be understood by all, just as there is between the forums of other denominations.

Sadly, the word "Lutheran" does not mean the same thing to different people, especially to those who use that word as the identity of their faith. The fact remains that we are considerably different theologically, and I really don't see how the two can be forced to share a common forum. The Methodists don't share a forum with the Roman Catholics, we shouldn't either.

That's my two cents.

How can we petition the CF powers that be into splitting this thing up?
This was the purpose of the subforums. People don't use them. The conservatives come into the liberal subforum and debate. Then they say we need to move threads and complain when they haven't read the rules.

It should be very simple - state facts and don't insult the other synod, just as you are not allowed to insult other denominations in their forums, but I know that a lot of people here do not understand how to do that at all, and it is becoming more and more obvious once again.

[Edial]

The majority of confeswsional Lutheran don't post opinions. They post bibilical precepts. Why would that be controversial and why would they be critisized as such?
I do not recall one Biblical verse that in itself was criticized here.

But I do see lots of confrontations that are evolving out of attitudes and even some condemnations.

But Christ did not come to condemn, but to save.

I do not know of one person who changed his mind based on condemnation.
Once one is condemned by us, he just goes further into himself. Gets more hardened.

Now, I also condemn others by my speech and behavior, but I realize that and try not to do that in my heart.
Before it was bad, now it is better.

TIT 2:7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

1PE 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

In my opinion respect dilutes condemnation and promotes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[jcj3803]

While some of the threads here have gotten quite intense and even headache-producing, I have found most posts to be invaluable. It's impractical for me to corner an ELCA minister and an LCMS minister and pick their brains on doctrine, etc, so I come here, assuming most information is reliable in addition to reading the denominations' Web sites.

I also subscribe to the adage "iron sharpens iron". I think this is a good place for people to pick up their "swords" and defend their faith, so I'm not above controversy as I learn a lot from the responses. I tutor math the same way - I challenge my students to prove what they assert.

I admit that might be stressful and / or distasteful and if that exceeds the bounds here, I'm content to lurk.

[Melethiel]

I don't think anyone is complaining about constructive debate and discussion. The problem is when things degenerate into personal attacks and condemnations.

[DaRev]

I do not recall one Biblical verse that in itself was criticized here.

But I do see lots of confrontations that are evolving out of attitudes and even some condemnations.

But Christ did not come to condemn, but to save.

I do not know of one person who changed his mind based on condemnation.
Once one is condemned by us, he just goes further into himself. Gets more hardened.

Now, I also condemn others by my speech and behavior, but I realize that and try not to do that in my heart.
Before it was bad, now it is better.

TIT 2:7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.

1PE 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16 keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

In my opinion respect dilutes condemnation and promotes the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks, :)
Ed

While some of the threads here have gotten quite intense and even headache-producing, I have found most posts to be invaluable. It's impractical for me to corner an ELCA minister and an LCMS minister and pick their brains on doctrine, etc, so I come here, assuming most information is reliable in addition to reading the denominations' Web sites.

I also subscribe to the adage "iron sharpens iron". I think this is a good place for people to pick up their "swords" and defend their faith, so I'm not above controversy as I learn a lot from the responses. I tutor math the same way - I challenge my students to prove what they assert.

I admit that might be stressful and / or distasteful and if that exceeds the bounds here, I'm content to lurk.

I don't think anyone is complaining about constructive debate and discussion. The problem is when things degenerate into personal attacks and condemnations.

This is where we need to bring in the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. The Law is meant to condemn. There are times when the Law must be applied. It's purpose is to accuse, convict, and execute the sinner and bring them to the knowledge of the Gospel. In order for one to be forgiven, they must repent. In order to repent, they must be made aware of what to repent of. This is where the Law comes into play.

The problem on this forum is that we are not allowed to apply the Law here, or we get warned for flaming. We are not allowed to back up our Biblical stance with the Confessions of the Church, or we get banned. (This happened to me. I was banned for a year for quoting the Confessions to counter a false teaching.)

If we can't use the Law to show our erring brother or sister their error, then what's the point of the forum? To play patty-cake and pretend that all is rosy and cheery in the world? Our Lord tells us in his word to avoid false teaching and to admonish and correct our erring brothers. But that command is not allowed here.

[Melethiel]

Admonishing and correcting can be done without flaming.

[DaRev]

Admonishing and correcting can be done without flaming.

And that depends on who's doing the admonishing, who's receiving the admonishing, and which staff member has to determine what is a flame and what is not. THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The reason for this is because TCL tends to be very hostile and critical to anyone who strays from the majority view in any way. This is why I no longer post here, and why many of the other Lutherans on CF do not.



1. SADLY, that's very true.


2. As a new Lutheran myself, this is profoundly frustrating to me, personally. I LOVE the Lutheran church and am quickly becoming very passionate and committed. I find that Lutherans are, personally, very nice and embracing people. Yet, for the thousands of guests who visit this forum, I feel rather confident they get an altogether different impression of Lutheranism and Lutherans. That hurts me and concerns me. I KNOW Lutherans don't threat the Sunday guests in their congregations the way people are too often treated here. If should not say anything here we would not say over coffee after worship on Sunday morning.



3. Lutherans are correct. They are the best theologians in the world. And the typical Lutheran layperson is better educated in theology than in any other denomination. We take this stuff VERY seriously. I think it's our biggest plus and our biggest minus. There is SOOOOOOO much Lutherans can offer to this - the largest Christian message board in the world. The theology of the Cross, our embrace of Tradition and the Sacraments, our clear and biblical affirmation of soteriology, and so on. SO much! If we could just stop arguing with each other long enough to do that. I'm new to Lutheranism, but I'm learning how big that "if" really is. I'm VERY frustrated about this. We have SO much to offer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



4. This forum has a reputation for being contentious. Ironcially, so do many Lutheran congregations. Long before I became a Lutheran, I was aware of the fighting and even litigation that makes some Lutheran denominations and congregations. Jesus said, "By this will all the world know that you are my disciples, if you have love..." It's GREAT that we are good theologians - but will anyone listen?


5. I came to this forum when I first visited this website. I was just beginning to worship at a Lutheran church regularly, with my s/o who is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor (as I am the grandson of a Lutheran pastor). I regret to say this, but I felt very unwelcomed here. I entered a conversation and was TERRIBLY misunderstood, rebuked, the object of some horrible PM's. I came back, most don't. I think WE need to prayerfully think about that.


6. After being off staff for 3 months, Bill (our Protestant Admin) invited me back and assigned me here. All the staff are mere mortals and volunteers. In my case, I haven't been a mod in nearly a year and I have a learning curve - I'll surely make some mistakes. We're not doing this for the money or fame, LOL. It's time consuming and thankless (I get lots of PM's to complain, I don't think I've ever got a thank you - except from other staff). I KNOW we tend to be seen as the "police" but that's really not the case. And realize that, for better or worse, we are required to follow VERY strick protocol (not all of which we may agree with), sometimes we just need to do our "job" as protocol requires - whether we like it or not. It's hard in a forum where we know the people, and perhaps they are friends - and we wish we could maybe handle things differently. If staff sends a PM, I REALLY wish it would be read - because someone is trying to be evangelical.


Just a bit of my perspective...


- Josiah

[Melethiel]

And that depends on who's doing the admonishing, who's receiving the admonishing, and which staff member has to determine what is a flame and what is not. THIS IS THE PROBLEM HERE.
It's very lenient in TCL...much of what has been said here would have been gone in a heartbeat had it been in Theology.

[Melethiel]

5. I came to this forum when I first visited this website. I was just beginning to worship at a Lutheran church regularly, with my s/o who is the daughter of a Lutheran pastor (as I am the grandson of a Lutheran pastor). I regret to say this, but I felt very unwelcomed here. I entered a conversation and was TERRIBLY misunderstood, rebuked, the object of some horrible PM's. I came back, most don't. I think WE need to prayerfully think about that.



I had the opposite experience. I was a regular on TCL, and had been posting here for a long time. This was likely partly my own fault, but things were said which came from people I deeply respect which hurt deeply, and still do. The only reason I'm posting in this thread now is because Jim asked me to.

[DaRev]

Allow me to comment here briefly...




3. Lutherans are correct. They are the best theologians in the world. And the typical Lutheran layperson is better educated in theology than in any other denomination. We take this stuff VERY seriously. I think it's our biggest plus and our biggest minus. There is SOOOOOOO much Lutherans can offer to this - the largest Christian message board in the world. The theology of the Cross, our embrace of Tradition and the Sacraments, our clear and biblical affirmation of soteriology, and so on. SO much! If we could just stop arguing with each other long enough to do that. I'm new to Lutheranism, but I'm learning how big that "if" really is. I'm VERY frustrated about this. We have SO much to offer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Which "Lutherans" are correct. It depends on who you ask. The LCMS/WELS and the ELCA are VERY different theologically.. in almost every area. Visitors who come here to ask a question about what Lutherans believe become inundated with the differences. "Lutherans ordain women. No they don't" "Lutherans reject the Reformed teaching on the Lord's Supper. No they don't, it's 'complimentary'." How can there be unity in a fourm where there is no unity under the denomination name? There can't be. It's the nature of the beast.
As long as this forum exists in its present form, this will be the case. And I truly feel for the staff who have to police this. Once I figured out what was required of the staff (time-wise more than anything) I had to rescind my moderator application.
I don't envy these people at all.

[Jim47]

I see a lot of good conversation and questions being brought into the open. I don't have all the answers, but I believe it was Edial that said above, its all about attitudes. This alone is 99% of the problem in my eyes.

1. are we so great that we have to be little one another?

2. are we so great that we con not accept construstive criticism?

If either of these questions are answered with a yeas, then we should not be posting here, plain and simple. So when you get into a discussion that you can not control your emotions, then sign off and think about, maybe even pray if thats acceptable.

DaRev had some very good points. Yes, it is all but impossible to preach law here without problems. This is true for two reasons.

1. Some poeple here don't know they have broken the law, so the first things they do is flame back, or report.

2. Some peole don't know how to preach the gospil in love, I see this as being the main problem, as with number one, if we are serving Christ, we should be able to accept abuse and persecution, and I believe that most of you do this quite well, but not all.

[Studeclunker]

I'm afraid that I have to agree with you on this one Revrend. The problem is that our moderator isn't being allowed to do his job.
It squelches debate, discussion, or perhaps some understanding when there's heavy handed censorship. Granted, we need to try and not offend our brothers and sisters. And in that, I consider the other Christian denominations, our brothers and sisters. Just because someone isn't Lutheran, doesn't mean they are any less Christian, to me at least.
Still, if one is going to post outside of their own (closed) forum, they need to understand that they may get a sharp answer from time to time. I see so many soapy little statements here and there, and in this thread, that say, "We must speak only in Love to one another." Really? How about when Luther called the Pope of his day the first servant of the Devil himself? Yeah, really loving. No, when there was a serious problem, Luther spoke quite frankly. He defended the faith quite viemently. We, obviously, aren't allowed to do that here. Heavens! We might hurt some delecate little heretic's feelings!

Yes, I know that we are called to, 'not injure the concience of the weaker brother.' Still, Paul (who made this statement) ordered this same congregation to eject a member and pray for his death!!

Since I'm not allowed to defend mine or my church's faith, I'll say good day to you all.

May our Lord smile upon you and keep all of you in his arms.

God bless and keep you all.:wave:

[mnphysicist]

Not only that, but there are a lot of liberal Lutherans here that enjoy the discussion and deabte we have in the main forum, and most of this is carriied on without any problem what so ever.
(staff hat off)
I have learned so much from the more conservative members here, I would really hate to see our interaction go. I may not agree, in fact I may really disagree, yet the learning and understanding that occurs is invaluable. I may yet be convinced. :)
(staff hat back on)

What Radidio said is also quite true, many of us use bible verses to prove our points. Why should this be wrong?

Ron: If you are following this thread, could you please comment on my questions above?

This is a tough one, and it causes no small amount of intense debate in the staff arena. Nobody on staff likes to remove scripture... In nearly all cases, its not so much the use of scripture, but the rest of the post thats the problem, and that is handled with our normal rules.

If we look at the flaming rule, you are allowed to say X is wrong because of Y, and the specific use of scripture as part of Y is fine. Now, in some cases, their will be wide interpretations of what Y means, and it is fine to discuss those differences as well. Ie, is it literal, is it metaphorical etc. This can all be done in an academic fashion without resulting in flaming. What happens sometimes, is folks back into a corner, and the boxing gloves come out, when it comes to these differences, and thats really when the flaming rule comes into play. Its not scripture, its not the interpretation, or even the differences, but its the boxing gloves.

[DaRev]

I see a lot of good conversation and questions being brought into the open. I don't have all the answers, but I believe it was Edial that said above, its all about attitudes. This alone is 99% of the problem in my eyes.

1. are we so great that we have to be little one another?

2. are we so great that we con not accept construstive criticism?

If either of these questions are answered with a yeas, then we should not be posting here, plain and simple. So when you get into a discussion that you can not control your emotions, then sign off and think about, maybe even pray if thats acceptable.

DaRev had some very good points. Yes, it is all but impossible to preach law here without problems. This is true for two reasons.

1. Some poeple here don't know they have broken the law, so the first things they do is flame back, or report.

2. Some peole don't know how to preach the gospil in love, I see this as being the main problem, as with number one, if we are serving Christ, we should be able to accept abuse and persecution, and I believe that most of you do this quite well, but not all.

In fear of repeating myself...

The problem, Jim, and you know this as well as I, is that the LCMS/WELS and the ELCA are very different theologically, even to the core of our faith. When one says something that is obvious error, it is our responsibility as Christians to correct our erring brothers and sisters. We are not allowed to do that here.

There is a reason that the different denominations have their own forums, that being to avoid the nonsense that occurs here on a regular basis. Could you imagine what would result if all denoms posted on the same forum? Have you been to GT lately? (In reality, GT isn't much different than TCL.)

Like I said before, there are a number of general fellowship and theology forums on CF. These are the place for general discussion and debate between Christians with differing views. As long as TCL exists in its present format, this problem will continue.

I will be the first to say that I will not back down on proclaiming the truth to someone who confronts me with error. Yes, I will try to curb my emotions, but I will defend the true faith to the end. If this is not going to be permitted on TCL, please let me know now and I will join those who have already left here.

[DaRev]

I'm afraid that I have to agree with you on this one Revrend. The problem is that our moderator isn't being allowed to do his job.
It squelches debate, discussion, or perhaps some understanding when there's heavy handed censorship. Granted, we need to try and not offend our brothers and sisters. And in that, I consider the other Christian denominations, our brothers and sisters. Just because someone isn't Lutheran, doesn't mean they are any less Christian, to me at least.
Still, if one is going to post outside of their own (closed) forum, they need to understand that they may get a sharp answer from time to time. I see so many soapy little statements here and there, and in this thread, that say, "We must speak only in Love to one another." Really? How about when Luther called the Pope of his day the first servant of the Devil himself? Yeah, really loving. No, when there was a serious problem, Luther spoke quite frankly. He defended the faith quite viemently. We, obviously, aren't allowed to do that here. Heavens! We might hurt some delecate little heretic's feelings!

Yes, I know that we are called to, 'not injure the concience of the weaker brother.' Still, Paul (who made this statement) ordered this same congregation to eject a member and pray for his death!!

Since I'm not allowed to defend mine or my church's faith, I'll say good day to you all.

May our Lord smile upon you and keep all of you in his arms.

God bless and keep you all.:wave:

Well, that's two down in two days - LutherNut and Studeclunker. How many more will join the exodus? :(

[Melethiel]

Seems it's a no win situation. Either way, people are going to leave.

[BelindaP]

I have another suggestion for the moderators (or even members) if they see a thread starting to degenerate into a flame war. Contact a CF Conciliator.

Besides helping with appeals, CF Conciliators also work as mediators between members who are having a hard time getting along. I know that I have seen flame wars start to erupt and PM'd the participating members to help resolve the conflict. Not everyone listens, but it usually calms the thread down a lot.

While we haven't managed to get the message out to moderators, we also help them, too. Rather wait until a conflict erupts into a flame war, they can ask a Conciliator to come into the thread and help people to calm down. The presence of the Conciliators is usually deemed as less threatening than Mod Hat posts.

I think I'm the only Lutheran Conciliator, but being Lutheran isn't a qualification for helping Lutherans to get along. Usually, all it takes as a kind word reminding people that they are all Christians and that the rules should be respected to calm a thread down.

Rather than subdividing ourselves yet again, we should work to get along better. Imagine if a parent's response to quarrelling children was to keep them separate all the time. It usually works better to remind them that if they don't settle it, you will. That way they learn to get along with one another, and they have a happier time of it.

We have so much to learn from one another. Let's not ruin that.

BTW, feel free to PM me or any of the other Conciliators if you ever require assistance, in this forum or any other. We love to help.

[ProfessorMom]

I think I'm the only Lutheran Conciliator, Oh no, you're not!!! :P :wave:

BTW, feel free to PM me or any of the other Conciliators if you ever require assistance, in this forum or any other. We love to help. :thumbsup:

Also let's all pray for one another! :prayer:

[Zecryphon]

Dude,

I used to be a mod over at www.about.com (http://www.about.com) in the Christianity General forum. So I know exactly the kinds of headaches you face and the problems you deal with. One thing I do disagree with is the closing of a thread while the mods figure out how to deal with the problem. This is quite new to me as the forum I modded did not do this, we just warned the offender or gagged them depending on their previous history.

One thing I have always thought was wrong is having the mods participate in discussions as posters. You should never see or hear from a mod unless they are addressing an issue on the forum or handling a violation of forum guidelines or policies. If the person who is a moderator also wishes to participate in forum discussions as a poster they should have a separate name for doing so. Doing things this way, in my opinion, eliminates alot of the petty complaints and accusations that get hurled at moderators when people know their "true" identities online. Mods should be like superheroes. They'll never be that respected cuz, let's face it, it's a job where you get no respect whatsoever and everybody pretty much hates you and is always critical of any decision you make. But mods should be anonymous.

[BelindaP]

:sorry: Shoulda looked closer at our membership before making that statement. :doh:

Well, there are two of us, at least, who would be fully qualified. As I said before, though, we all like to help.

[Edial]

...
Yes, I know that we are called to, 'not injure the concience of the weaker brother.' Still, Paul (who made this statement) ordered this same congregation to eject a member and pray for his death!!

...

This is a significant stretch of the text.

We are not to pray for death of another believer however backslidden he might be.

In the text below we see an excommunication of a member who was involved in a significant sexual sin and contaminated the church to such a degree that they were proud of it.

Paul told them to put him out of the protection of the church so that the Satan would have his way with him.

And his hope was that while Satan would torment him with illnesses and such unto death, his spirit would be saved at the last day.

There is NO prayer for death that is instructed to us.

1CO 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature n may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.

[ProfessorMom]

Well, that's two down in two days - LutherNut and Studeclunker. How many more will join the exodus? :(

I think the answer to that depends, not on the moderators, as it seems some may have hinted, but rather at the individual members who have the privilege of posting on this forum, and these sub-forums.

I have a suggestion, if I may.

As I've read through many threads in the main forum, some of my reactions to some of the posts are :eek: :eek: !!

It crossed my mind that everyone posting here should feel blessed that we are able to make some posts here that would not be tolerated in other CF forums. The moderators tolerate an awful lot of :eek: posts.

Showing and gaining a deeper understanding for, and learning about, another's beliefs does not mean we must accept those beliefs as our own. We needn't feel threatened. Lively discussion and debate is good, but hurtful, mean, and sometimes even nasty posts which aim it seems is solely to destroy another person or even more sadly, their faith in Jesus Christ, shouldn't have any place in our Lutheran forums.

As Christians, if we have hurt another, whether by intent or misunderstanding, shouldn't we apologize to each other, and also ask God's forgiveness. We should never behave as though Jesus in not in our midst, for where two or more of us gather in His Name, He is there. We can disagree in a respectful manner. We also should easily and quickly forgive.

Now, I do have a suggestion for the sub-forums, which have stickies that read:

Members of the ELCA, ELCIC, and any liberal Lutherans.

This is a subforum for the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans.

If you belong to the ELCA, ELCIC, or anyother liberal Lutheran branch, only fellowship posts are allowed. You are not allowed to debate here. If you would like to debate something with a member of a conservative Lutheran branch, please do so in the main Lutherans forum.

Thank you.

and also,

Members of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans.

This is a subforum for the ELCA, ELCIC, and other liberal Lutherans.

If you belong to the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, or any other conservative Lutheran branch, only fellowship posts are allowed. You are not allowed to debate here. If you would like to debate something with a member of a liberal Lutheran branch, please do so in the main Lutherans forum.

Thank you.


Debating by conservative members is not allowed in this Liberal member forum.

Mod Hat on

Members of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans are not allowed to engage in debate in this forum, neither will baiting, harassment or flaming be tolerated.


I think a gentle reminder of these stickies, along with a generous dose of respect for the posters in our respective sub-forums is important for all of us. :) We can meet in the main forum for a great debate, but it's my opinion that we should leave each other's sub-forums alone unless we have honest questions. Even a little match can be used to light a flame.

[DaRev]

I think I'm the only Lutheran Conciliator,

Oh no, you're not!!!



But, which "Lutheran" are you? It would do no good if only one of the "Lutheran" camps is represented. I don't think a Baptist Conciliator would work in the Roman Catholic forum. Unless both camps are equally represented here, it won't help.

[Melethiel]

Dude,

I used to be a mod over at www.about.com (http://www.about.com) in the Christianity General forum. So I know exactly the kinds of headaches you face and the problems you deal with. One thing I do disagree with is the closing of a thread while the mods figure out how to deal with the problem. This is quite new to me as the forum I modded did not do this, we just warned the offender or gagged them depending on their previous history.

One thing I have always thought was wrong is having the mods participate in discussions as posters. You should never see or hear from a mod unless they are addressing an issue on the forum or handling a violation of forum guidelines or policies. If the person who is a moderator also wishes to participate in forum discussions as a poster they should have a separate name for doing so. Doing things this way, in my opinion, eliminates alot of the petty complaints and accusations that get hurled at moderators when people know their "true" identities online. Mods should be like superheroes. They'll never be that respected cuz, let's face it, it's a job where you get no respect whatsoever and everybody pretty much hates you and is always critical of any decision you make. But mods should be anonymous.
Most people would disagree with you - we've had many complaints that people never see the moderators unless they are "passing judgment from above." It has been my experience that most people on CF prefer to know their mods and have them participate in discussions.

[DaRev]

We can meet in the main forum for a great debate, but it's my opinion that we should leave each other's sub-forums alone unless we have honest questions. Even a little match can be used to light a flame.

The problem, though, is that the two sides are very, very different theologically. The word "Lutheran" means nothing. We need to be allowed to defend our faith. The problem is that when we try that here, we get warnings, infractions, or banned.

Perhaps the noose needs to be much, much tighter here to prevent these types of things from happening. No theological debates. No comparisons between liberals and confessionals. And absolutely no outsiders allowed to come in and ask what "Lutherans" believe on a given topic (this one must be a BIG no-no). This is the only way that this type of situation can be avoided.

I am a long time member of another Lutheran forum (LCMS) and they do allow non-Lutherans to come in and ask questions and debate. But the moment that someone tries to tell us what we are to believe or violates any of the forum rules. They get warned once. If it continues, they are permenantly banned. They only way to get back in is to be approved by the moderator.

TCL has two major conflicting camps. While we can get along with secular discussions, once theology begins, that's when the claws come out. This is a very delicate thing with "Lutherans." There either has to be a tight noose, or the forum will simply not work.

[Edial]

The problem, though, is that the two sides are very, very different theologically. The word "Lutheran" means nothing. We need to be allowed to defend our faith. The problem is that when we try that here, we get warnings, infractions, or banned.
.....

TCL has two major conflicting camps. While we can get along with secular discussions, once theology begins, that's when the claws come out...
Exactly, "the claws come out".

And the warnings, infractions or bans are not due to theological debates, but claws.

[ProfessorMom]

But, which "Lutheran" are you? It would do no good if only one of the "Lutheran" camps is represented. I don't think a Baptist Conciliator would work in the Roman Catholic forum. Unless both camps are equally represented here, it won't help.
I'm sorry, DaRev, I think we may have inadvertently misrepresented the role of a conciliator. Concilicator's are all Christians, but we don't represent individual denominations or non-denominations at CF. Our job is not to defend anyone's theological perspective. Let me explain.

The Ombudsman, who was appointed by Erwin, heads the team of conciliators. We conciliators were designated by the Ombudsman and approved by Erwin. We are not member of Staff but are normal members at CF. We exist as a liaison for members and are there to ensure staff accountability and transparency.

What follows is from the Appeals Rule 10.2 Duties and Authority of the Conciliators, which may be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/faq.php?faq=rule_3#faq_appeals). The Conciliators will provide assistance to any member at any stage of the appeals process. Such assistance may include, but is not limited to, explaining CF Rules, explaining CF procedures, drafting appeals, serving as an intermediary between Staff and members, serving as an intermediary between members, arranging settlement of disputes, and submitting reports to the CEO.

We are here to help member/member, member/Staff, or Staff/member, when any one of these groups experiencing difficulties in communication, or has questions regarding rules. We are not assigned to any particular forum, rather we are here for all members, who may pm us whenever they feel a need.

:wave:

[Jim47]

Dude,

I used to be a mod over at www.about.com (http://www.about.com) in the Christianity General forum. So I know exactly the kinds of headaches you face and the problems you deal with. One thing I do disagree with is the closing of a thread while the mods figure out how to deal with the problem. This is quite new to me as the forum I modded did not do this, we just warned the offender or gagged them depending on their previous history.

One thing I have always thought was wrong is having the mods participate in discussions as posters. You should never see or hear from a mod unless they are addressing an issue on the forum or handling a violation of forum guidelines or policies. If the person who is a moderator also wishes to participate in forum discussions as a poster they should have a separate name for doing so. Doing things this way, in my opinion, eliminates alot of the petty complaints and accusations that get hurled at moderators when people know their "true" identities online. Mods should be like superheroes. They'll never be that respected cuz, let's face it, it's a job where you get no respect whatsoever and everybody pretty much hates you and is always critical of any decision you make. But mods should be anonymous.



You are of course welcome to your beliefs on how things should be, but this CF.

CF staff and moderators have to put in a lot of time into serving their forums. Clsoing and moving threads is not only necesary and also recommened. We have to do that se we can clean up problems and keep more problems from occuring while we are cleaning them up. This also serves as a cooling off periord and gets everyone back on track.

As far as our mods not posting in our very own forums, that is really obsurd. First of all we are encouraged to be active in our respective forums, secondly why should we have to refrain from discussions and fellowship? We want to appear as one of the members, not as a moderator. I am first a member of this forum and a friend to anyone who will have me, and secondly a CF staff member.

[Jim47]

:sorry: Shoulda looked closer at our membership before making that statement. :doh:

Well, there are two of us, at least, who would be fully qualified. As I said before, though, we all like to help.


I think your help would be much appreciated, but I would also recommend that you start posting in here on a regular basis. Otherwise, how would people feel about using your help if they don't even know you.

[DaRev]

Exactly, "the claws come out".

And the warnings, infractions or bans are not due to theological debates, but claws.

But the theological debates cause the claws to come out. If you don't want the grizzly bear to claw you, avoid the bear!! If I make a statement concerning a Biblical or Confessional position and someone tries to tell me I'm wrong, I am going to defend the truth (as you are well aware;) ). It then becomes up to a staff member's personal interpretation (or bias) as to what constitutes a rule violation. (I would go into this further, but that would be a rule violation and I don't want to do that.)

[BelindaP]

The word "Lutheran" means nothing. We need to be allowed to defend our faith.
I have been to Lutheran churches on both ends of the spectrum, and I think there are more things in common than not. It almost seems as if you are calling liberal Lutherans a different faith from conservative Lutherans. Remember, we are all Christians and share a faith.

Perhaps the noose needs to be much, much tighter here to prevent these types of things from happening.
I have never been a fan of tight nooses. All they do is make people uncomfortable.

No theological debates. No comparisons between liberals and confessionals.
I could see this in the common Lutheran forum. If liberal and conservatives want to debate, they can go to General Theology.

And absolutely no outsiders allowed to come in and ask what "Lutherans" believe on a given topic (this one must be a BIG no-no).
:eek: Then, how are people going to learn about the Lutheran faith? Can't an ECLA member identify themself as such and give the ECLA's views and a LCMS member do the same? Do they have to argue about it?

TCL has two major conflicting camps. While we can get along with secular discussions, once theology begins, that's when the claws come out. This is a very delicate thing with "Lutherans." There either has to be a tight noose, or the forum will simply not work.
I know Lutherans are very touchy about the "correct" doctrine. However, as I said, we have more things in common than different. Why not come up with a "controversial subjects" list for the common forum and forbid discussion on those subjects except in the sub-forums?

In the common forum, I would think that each member could label themself as residing in one camp or the other and then discuss things in a civil manner. If we can remind ourselves that we are bickering in the presence of the living God, perhaps we could behave better. Just follow the rule of not saying anything unless you would say it that way in front of Jesus. Also remember, we are saying it in the presence of everyone here, including inquirers. Mind how you look to them.

[ProfessorMom]

You are of course welcome to your beliefs on how things should be, but this CF.

CF staff and moderators have to put in a lot of time into serving their forums. Clsoing and moving threads is not only necesary and also recommened. We have to do that se we can clean up problems and keep more problems from occuring while we are cleaning them up. This also serves as a cooling off periord and gets everyone back on track.

As far as our mods not posting in our very own forums, that is really obsurd. First of all we are encouraged to be active in our respective forums, secondly why should we have to refrain from discussions and fellowship? We want to appear as one of the members, not as a moderator. I am first a member of this forum and a friend to anyone who will have me, and secondly a CF staff member.

Yes, I agree completely - not that it matters :D.

Also,

Zecryphon[/B]]Mods should be like superheroes. They'll never be that respected cuz, let's face it, it's a job where you get no respect whatsoever and everybody pretty much hates you and is always critical of any decision you make. But mods should be anonymous. No mod here at CF sees themselves as superheroes. Mods are also not pretty much hated. More importantly, it's quite clear that Jim47 is a most humble Christian who views his role as mod as one of serving. He cares deeply for the members who post in the forums he moderates.

[Melethiel]

In the common forum, I would think that each member could label themself as residing in one camp or the other

So THAT was my problem...I never fully identified myself with either camp. :doh:

[BelindaP]

Yeah, I know. I'm not solidly in one or the other either. But, perhaps if a person (when giving an answer to an inquirer) could label their belief as either the liberal or the conservative view, it would keep the wolves at bay. ;)

[Jim47]

I think the answer to that depends, not on the moderators, as it seems some may have hinted, but rather at the individual members who have the privilege of posting on this forum, and these sub-forums.

I have a suggestion, if I may.

As I've read through many threads in the main forum, some of my reactions to some of the posts are :eek: :eek: !!

It crossed my mind that everyone posting here should feel blessed that we are able to make some posts here that would not be tolerated in other CF forums. The moderators tolerate an awful lot of :eek: posts.

Showing and gaining a deeper understanding for, and learning about, another's beliefs does not mean we must accept those beliefs as our own. We needn't feel threatened. Lively discussion and debate is good, but hurtful, mean, and sometimes even nasty posts which aim it seems is solely to destroy another person or even more sadly, their faith in Jesus Christ, shouldn't have any place in our Lutheran forums.

As Christians, if we have hurt another, whether by intent or misunderstanding, shouldn't we apologize to each other, and also ask God's forgiveness. We should never behave as though Jesus in not in our midst, for where two or more of us gather in His Name, He is there. We can disagree in a respectful manner. We also should easily and quickly forgive.

Now, I do have a suggestion for the sub-forums, which have stickies that read:

Members of the ELCA, ELCIC, and any liberal Lutherans.

This is a subforum for the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans.

If you belong to the ELCA, ELCIC, or anyother liberal Lutheran branch, only fellowship posts are allowed. You are not allowed to debate here. If you would like to debate something with a member of a conservative Lutheran branch, please do so in the main Lutherans forum.

Thank you.

and also,

Members of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans.

This is a subforum for the ELCA, ELCIC, and other liberal Lutherans.

If you belong to the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, or any other conservative Lutheran branch, only fellowship posts are allowed. You are not allowed to debate here. If you would like to debate something with a member of a liberal Lutheran branch, please do so in the main Lutherans forum.

Thank you.


Debating by conservative members is not allowed in this Liberal member forum.

Mod Hat on

Members of the LCMS, WELS, ELS, LCC, and other conservative Lutherans are not allowed to engage in debate in this forum, neither will baiting, harassment or flaming be tolerated.


I think a gentle reminder of these stickies, along with a generous dose of respect for the posters in our respective sub-forums is important for all of us. :) We can meet in the main forum for a great debate, but it's my opinion that we should leave each other's sub-forums alone unless we have honest questions. Even a little match can be used to light a flame.



:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: I really appreciate your post Professor. I don't think there is anything you wrote that I disagree with.

I especially like your saying: "Even a little match can be used to light a flame." :thumbsup:

[Zecryphon]

Yes, I agree completely - not that it matters :D.

Also,

No mod here at CF sees themselves as superheroes. Mods are also not pretty much hated. More importantly, it's quite clear that Jim47 is a most humble Christian who views his role as mod as one of serving. He cares deeply for the members who post in the forums he moderates.
I was speaking from my experience as a mod on another forum. I also did not say mods were superheros but was stating that they should be like superheroes in the sense that nobody knows a superheroes real identity. By the same token, no one should know a mod's real identity either.

[Zecryphon]

Most people would disagree with you - we've had many complaints that people never see the moderators unless they are "passing judgment from above." It has been my experience that most people on CF prefer to know their mods and have them participate in discussions.
Most people disagree with me on a few things. Because someone disagrees with my stance or my view isn't going to make me change my view.

[BelindaP]

I disagree. If a moderator is active in the forum that they moderate, people get to know them. Their communications (when they have to wear the Mod Hat) are more effective and people are less likely to assume they have nefarious motives when they are performing moderator actions.

I know for me that getting an official communication is much less intimidating when I know the moderator in question. I actually feel like I can have a conversation with them if need be. I think others would probably feel the same, too.

In my experience, moderators who regularly mix with the great unwashed (lol!) have better relations with the community. That works with community policing in the real world, as well.

[BelindaP]

I don't mean to be completely cheeky, but what would?

[DaRev]

I have been to Lutheran churches on both ends of the spectrum, and I think there are more things in common than not. It almost seems as if you are calling liberal Lutherans a different faith from conservative Lutherans. Remember, we are all Christians and share a faith.

Ordination of women, close communion, homosexual clergy, toleration of abortion, position on authority of Scripture (perhaps the biggest of them)...
I would say that the differences FAR outweigh the similarities.
We are similar only on the exterior. It's the same similarities that we have with the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc. The core teachings are extremely different.

I have never been a fan of tight nooses. All they do is make people uncomfortable.

And you're comfortable with the current state here? We're losing people over this. No comfort here.

I could see this in the common Lutheran forum. If liberal and conservatives want to debate, they can go to General Theology.

I agree 100%:thumbsup:


:eek: Then, how are people going to learn about the Lutheran faith? Can't an ECLA member identify themself as such and give the ECLA's views and a LCMS member do the same? Do they have to argue about it?

They can't learn about the Lutheran faith here.
Answer these questions: Do Lutherans ordain women? Do Lutherans practice close communion? What is the Lutheran position on the Reformed teaching concerning the Real Presence? Are Lutherans pro-life? Do Lutherans believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?

How can one find the answers to these questions here?

I know Lutherans are very touchy about the "correct" doctrine. However, as I said, we have more things in common than different. Why not come up with a "controversial subjects" list for the common forum and forbid discussion on those subjects except in the sub-forums?

You might as well close the forum down. No one would be allowed to post here at all. ;)

In the common forum, I would think that each member could label themself as residing in one camp or the other and then discuss things in a civil manner. If we can remind ourselves that we are bickering in the presence of the living God, perhaps we could behave better. Just follow the rule of not saying anything unless you would say it that way in front of Jesus. Also remember, we are saying it in the presence of everyone here, including inquirers. Mind how you look to them.

Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day to their faces. If He were to do that here, He'd get banned.
Our Lord did not and does not tolerate false teaching.


Now, where do we go from here?

[porterross]

The more I read of everyone's points here, I have to admit that I have come to agree with DaRev about doing away with the main TCL, combined forum and keeping the conservative and liberal Lutheran separate. Originally, I didn't see this as advantageous, but for the time being, it might be the amicable solution.

Of course, I'll take that a step further by stating that obviously, this separation for peace would likely not work if the motivation of the mods were in question, i.e. liberal mods for the liberal forum and conservative mods only for the conservative forum would have be taken into consideration. This is an issue, even if no one has stated it yet, and if I'm breaking rules by stating the obvious, so be it.

The only other viable solution at this time might be to restrict any combined posting areas to be non-debating, general fellowship threads. No theology debating allowed as is obviously the rule based on recent mod actions...unbeknown to most of us up to this point.

Surely, some of the goals at this point should be to:
(1) stop the animosity
(2) mend any hurt feelings
(3) attract more Lutheran posters

This is how I see things and in the current environment, it does make it difficult to justify posting here unless something changes. This perspective is in no way a reflection on Jim, who is most fair and just and whose fellowship and knowledge I deeply appreciate and respect. His starting this thread is a move in the right direction and it is my sincere hope that some remedied is soon implemented.

Peace

[Zecryphon]

"You are of course welcome to your beliefs on how things should be, but this CF."

Different forums will of course have different ways of operating. Just because it's different doesn't automatically mean it's wrong.


"CF staff and moderators have to put in a lot of time into serving their forums."

Yep, this is true with any forum, I imagine. It was certainly true over at About.com at least when I was there, because it was just me and one other mod for the most part.

"Closing and moving threads is not only necesary and also recommened. We have to do that se we can clean up problems and keep more problems from occuring while we are cleaning them up. This also serves as a cooling off periord and gets everyone back on track."

I don't think there needs to be a consensus among mods about a violation. Either a post is a violation of the rules or it isn't. Also, explain to me why when you guys delete a post, you also delete any other post that referenced the post you deleted, when at the time the post was quoted, it was not a deleted post. I've had many of my posts deleted because I didn't uncheck that little box at the bottom of the page that says and is automatically set to "Quote message in reply?" I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this. I've been told that quoting a deleted post is not a violation of forum policy, but have had to put up with having my posts deleted as a result of quoting a deleted post.


"As far as our mods not posting in our very own forums, that is really obsurd."

A mod can post in the forums of course, my only suggestion is that they have a different name to post under. But I of course understand why a person would not like that idea.

"First of all we are encouraged to be active in our respective forums, secondly why should we have to refrain from discussions and fellowship?"

That's not what I'm saying at all. Why does everyone always go there when I throw out the idea that a mod should enforce the rules under one name and participate in the discussions under another name?

"We want to appear as one of the members, not as a moderator."

And you would appear as a member and not a moderator if you particpated as a member under another name.

"I am first a member of this forum and a friend to anyone who will have me, and secondly a CF staff member."

Of course you are. But how many other people view it the same way you do? That's a rhetorical question, you don't really need to answer that one.

[ProfessorMom]

We can meet in the main forum for a great debate, but it's my opinion that we should leave each other's sub-forums alone unless we have honest questions. Even a little match can be used to light a flame.The problem, though, is that the two sides are very, very different theologically. The word "Lutheran" means nothing. We need to be allowed to defend our faith. The problem is that when we try that here, we get warnings, infractions, or banned.

Perhaps the noose needs to be much, much tighter here to prevent these types of things from happening. No theological debates. No comparisons between liberals and confessionals. And absolutely no outsiders allowed to come in and ask what "Lutherans" believe on a given topic (this one must be a BIG no-no). This is the only way that this type of situation can be avoided.

I am a long time member of another Lutheran forum (LCMS) and they do allow non-Lutherans to come in and ask questions and debate. But the moment that someone tries to tell us what we are to believe or violates any of the forum rules. They get warned once. If it continues, they are permenantly banned. They only way to get back in is to be approved by the moderator.

TCL has two major conflicting camps. While we can get along with secular discussions, once theology begins, that's when the claws come out. This is a very delicate thing with "Lutherans." There either has to be a tight noose, or the forum will simply not work.Okay, I understand what you're saying. It can be difficult.

But with my statement above, I was addressing posting in the sub-forums. That if someone comes into the ELCA sub-forum and asks a question, then we need to leave that alone if we are LCMS Lutherans. It works the other way around, too. If someone goes into LCMS sub-forum and asks a question, then ELCA Lutherans need to leave that alone. Besides, a better weapon would be the best weapon we've been given - prayer.

The two sub-forums are for the separate Lutherans to fellowship or congregate. Those are the rules they've put in place for Theologia Crucis - Lutherans, and we should respect those rules. That's why I said, for those who are willing or ready for a bit of a debate- :P, there is the main forum.

[ProfessorMom]

Most people disagree with me on a few things. Because someone disagrees with my stance or my view isn't going to make me change my view. And I don't think you need to make any changes in your view, and I wasn't trying to change them, just explain moderating from CF's view. But I think we now better understand differences in being a mod here and at about dot com. Thanks. :thumbsup:

[BelindaP]

And you're comfortable with the current state here? We're losing people over this. No comfort here.
I can't say that I am. I just think there might be some middle ground that we could seek so that the common forum could be preserved. The reason is that there are a lot of conservative ECLA's who would have a hard time coping if stuck in that forum, and there are a lot of more liberal LCMS's and LCWS's that wouldn't do too well in an isolated conservative forum.

They can't learn about the Lutheran faith here.
Answer these questions: Do Lutherans ordain women? Do Lutherans practice close communion? What is the Lutheran position on the Reformed teaching concerning the Real Presence? Are Lutherans pro-life? Do Lutherans believe in the inerrancy of the Bible?
I don't see why they couldn't learn about it here. One person could post the ECLA's views on such a question and another could post the LCMS's views. Both could be done without questioning the rightness or the wrongness of the other's doctrine. If they were itching for a fight, they could always invite the other poster to "step outside" into the GT forum.

You might as well close the forum down. No one would be allowed to post here at all.
I don't think that's true. Once all the argumentation was done away with, there could be a lot of topics for discussion. We just can't see them right now through all the gun smoke.

Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His day to their faces. If He were to do that here, He'd get banned.
Our Lord did not and does not tolerate false teaching.
You are right. He does not tolerate false teaching. He probably would have hung out in the debate forums if the internet age existed back then. However, if you are going to go around accusing other believers of false teachings, you should stick to GT or one of the other debate forums. In here it's coffee hour. I believe that it is a long-standing Lutheran tradition not to argue much during coffee hour.

Now, where do we go from here?I'm not sure. I think this discussion is a good start.

[Zecryphon]

And I don't think you need to make any changes in your view, and I wasn't trying to change them, just explain moderating from CF's view. But I think we now better understand differences in being a mod here and at about dot com. Thanks. :thumbsup:
Anytime. About.com is a much more unregulated forum and it is a lot more brutal in terms of the discussions that go on over there. When I was made a mod over there and told my Christian friends about it, the response I got over and over was along the lines of "I hope you can clean that place up. It's a cess pool straight from the pits of Hell." LOL I actually didn't think it was ever that bad. But it certainly is a very different forum from this one.

[DaRev]

The only other viable solution at this time might be to restrict any combined posting areas to be non-debating, general fellowship threads. No theology debating allowed as is obviously the rule based on recent mod actions...unbeknown to most of us up to this point.

This solution would work if it would be enforced correctly. There would be no debating at all in the main forum. Just inter-Lutheran fellowship and discussion. Any debates would be moved to GT or someplace like that. Or even perhaps the debating members would continue their discussion in a private thread, away from the public.

[/size]Okay, I understand what you're saying. It can be difficult.

But with my statement above, I was addressing posting in the sub-forums. That if someone comes into the ELCA sub-forum and asks a question, then we need to leave that alone if we are LCMS Lutherans. It works the other way around, too. If someone goes into LCMS sub-forum and asks a question, then ELCA Lutherans need to leave that alone. Besides, a better weapon would be the best weapon we've been given - prayer.

The two sub-forums are for the separate Lutherans to fellowship or congregate. Those are the rules they've put in place for Theologia Crucis - Lutherans, and we should respect those rules. That's why I said, for those who are willing or ready for a bit of a debate- :P, there is the main forum.

The rules in the sub-forums include no debating between camps. And there seems to be no problem with that. If someone starts a debate there, they are on top of it. It's simply not allowed there, period. And everyone knows and accepts that.
It should be that way in the main forum if it's going to be continued to be shared by two completely theologically different groups.

[BelindaP]

The number one offense in these forums is violation of the flaming rule. It's not about whether we ordinate women or have close communion. It's not even about who's liberal and who is conservative. I run into stuff like this all the time as a Conciliator.

You have two wonderful people who are believers, and they are tearing each others's hair out because of some doctrinal issue that has no bearing on salvation. Believers should never be angry with one another over such things. If it makes you that angry, then don't discuss it. You're never going to win somebody over to your side in that state anyway, so why do it?

I am a convert to the Lutheran faith, and as an outsider I have a different perspective of Lutherans than they hold of themselves. What I see is that they tend to get so hung up on certain doctrinal subjects [This is true of every church, BTW.] that they lose sight of what being a Lutheran means.

One thing we have in common is our heritage. There are so many things that we could share and fellowship with one another over. There are attitudes and personalities that one tends to see only in Lutheran churches. These are great talking points. Should we lose all that because we tend to be cranky-butts about doctrine? I don't think so.

DaRev made an interesting point, and it's one I think we should consider.

This solution would work if it would be enforced correctly. There would be no debating at all in the main forum. Just inter-Lutheran fellowship and discussion. Any debates would be moved to GT or someplace like that. Or even perhaps the debating members would continue their discussion in a private thread, away from the public.

The rules in the sub-forums include no debating between camps. And there seems to be no problem with that. If someone starts a debate there, they are on top of it. It's simply not allowed there, period. And everyone knows and accepts that.
It should be that way in the main forum if it's going to be continued to be shared by two completely theologically different groups.

I could sign onto something like that. What does everyone else have to say? [Oh, and keep it civil, now:)]

[ProfessorMom]

I am sad that while both bodies of Lutherans (ELCA/LCMS) do believe:
In the Triune God,
The Confessions are true teachings of biblical faith,
That God comes through the Word and the Sacraments
We all firmly believe that we are justified through grace in faith,Yet, we prefer to fight about our differences, which I think are less important to salvation.

Where we differ is:
Should we use higher critical methods when interpreting the Bible.
Should women be allowed to preach.
Should we be in complete agreement doctrinally in order to have fellowship.To me these three things are less important to my salvation and are temporary in the same way as my life is temporary. These three issues can also make for wonderful and lively discussions, but do we make these the foundations of our faith? Is this the measure we use when we judge whether an ELCA Lutheran is a Lutheran, or as inferred in some posts, even a Christian?

I believe there is a huge difference between believing what another believes, and understanding what another believes. Is my faith in jeopardy simply because I have learned about someone else's Church?
For me, the answer is always a hearty, "No!"

[BelindaP]

See here (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31711821&postcount=37) for my updated post.

[synger]

I have been to Lutheran churches on both ends of the spectrum, and I think there are more things in common than not. It almost seems as if you are calling liberal Lutherans a different faith from conservative Lutherans. Remember, we are all Christians and share a faith.

Ordination of women, close communion, homosexual clergy, toleration of abortion, position on authority of Scripture (perhaps the biggest of them)...
I would say that the differences FAR outweigh the similarities.
We are similar only on the exterior. It's the same similarities that we have with the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Presbyterian, etc. The core teachings are extremely different.

As a relative outsider, DaRev, I must respectfully disagree. Studying and attending a Lutheran church, but coming from a Presbyterian background, I've been strongly struck by the marked similarities among the Lutheran synods/camps/whatevers. Your shared history and doctrinal background, whether you agree on all the points or not, make you a unique group of believers with more in common with each other than with other traditions.

Whether you have open or close communion, or whether you are in pulpit fellowship with those who do not have exactly the same understanding of communion, Lutherans look at the Sacraments as means of grace, which is very different than Reformed or Catholics or Anglicans or Baptists.

Whether you ordain women or practicing homosexuals or not, you all believe that preaching the Word is an actual means of grace, not just for learning and growing and worshipping.

Whether you believe that the Bible is inerrant or not, you use a similar lectionary, which means that almost every Lutheran hears the same Word every Sunday. You believe that the Bible is the final authority on doctrine and tradition (whether you agree on what the Bible says or not).

You believe that God calls us from our sin, that we do not "make a decision." You believe that while God calls us, we can turn from Him. Neither Reformed nor Baptist believe that.

Whether you follow all the confessions exactly the same way, you can all point to them as foundational doctrines of your beliefs, just as all Reformed can look at the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession. You have a strong tradition of teaching your children at least the Small catechism (and the least controversial, I'd say).

I don't know. I may be wrong. But it seems to me that perhaps it is easier for me to see the similarities among you, since I have only been looking into Lutheran history and doctrine for a couple of years rather than my whole life.

This I do know. The Presbyterian church has gone through much the same fracture and tearing, over many of the same issues. I served as an elder during the time when we had the "Reimagining God (http://www.layman.org/layman/news/reimagining-revival.htm)" controversy, where people were worshiping Sophia rather than God. I have seen what such controversy can do to a denomination. And yet, there is only one Reformed forum here on CF.

The Anglicans have both liberal and conservative camps within their historical tradition. They have only one forum. The Catholics, even with their centralized authority, have a tremendous amount of difference between liberal and conservative. And yet they, too, have only one forum.

I would be more interested in an all-denomination "conservative" forum, like the "liberal" forum CF has, than seeing two Lutheran forums. I think it would be a real shame, and a crushing defeat, if we cannot be adult enough to look beyond our differences, great though they may be, to the shared history and doctrine that we DO have that makes us unique.

[Jim47]

I disagree. If a moderator is active in the forum that they moderate, people get to know them. Their communications (when they have to wear the Mod Hat) are more effective and people are less likely to assume they have nefarious motives when they are performing moderator actions.

I know for me that getting an official communication is much less intimidating when I know the moderator in question. I actually feel like I can have a conversation with them if need be. I think others would probably feel the same, too.

In my experience, moderators who regularly mix with the great unwashed (lol!) have better relations with the community. That works with community policing in the real world, as well.


Thanks! :thumbsup: I really appreciate that.

Let me introduce Jim47

1. I'm not smart
2. I'm not good looking any more, I used to be :P
3. There are a vast number of people here who know Lutheranism much better then I do, but I am a Christian first, and a Lutheran second.
4. I make tons of mistakes in doing my job here on staff. This is all still a learning process for me.

I hate giving warnings and infractions, and I can insure you that I have never given any because I did not like the person. My only goal is to enforce the rules, because guess what? If I don't I will be gone and someone more staunch then myself will take over because I have failed to it correctly :sigh:
5. I am open to suggestions anytime. Of couse I can't please everyone, but I will try.
6. If ever you feel I have been unfair, report me. There have been several people here who have reported me, and I still consider everyone of them my friends. As I said, I don't always do everyone thing right, but I try ;)


Its been a long and trying day for me. I've tried to answer more PM's then I normally get in 3 weeks. Please forgive me if I failed to give your PM adequate attention. I am super lousy typer, and very slow, but I try ;)

Please all of you, keep this discussion going. This is the best thing we've done in a long time. Everyone gets to aire their feelings, and to offer their suggestions. I really appreciate it.

I will also offer my phone number to anyone who would like to talk to me, but remember, I warned you here, I'm not too bright :P so don't be surprised when you talk to me.

[ProfessorMom]

Oh Jim, you're a moderators' moderator!

You have a great sense of humor! I think you are bright, and trust me I know bright people when I come across them!

Have a restful evening!

[ProfessorMom]

As a relative outsider, DaRev, I must respectfully disagree. Studying and attending a Lutheran church, but coming from a Presbyterian background, I've been strongly struck by the marked similarities among the Lutheran synods/camps/whatevers. Your shared history and doctrinal background, whether you agree on all the points or not, make you a unique group of believers with more in common with each other than with other traditions.

Whether you have open or close communion, or whether you are in pulpit fellowship with those who do not have exactly the same understanding of communion, Lutherans look at the Sacraments as means of grace, which is very different than Reformed or Catholics or Anglicans or Baptists.

Whether you ordain women or practicing homosexuals or not, you all believe that preaching the Word is an actual means of grace, not just for learning and growing and worshipping.

Whether you believe that the Bible is inerrant or not, you use a similar lectionary, which means that almost every Lutheran hears the same Word every Sunday. You believe that the Bible is the final authority on doctrine and tradition (whether you agree on what the Bible says or not).

You believe that God calls us from our sin, that we do not "make a decision." You believe that while God calls us, we can turn from Him. Neither Reformed nor Baptist believe that.

Whether you follow all the confessions exactly the same way, you can all point to them as foundational doctrines of your beliefs, just as all Reformed can look at the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Confession. You have a strong tradition of teaching your children at least the Small catechism (and the least controversial, I'd say).

I don't know. I may be wrong. But it seems to me that perhaps it is easier for me to see the similarities among you, since I have only been looking into Lutheran history and doctrine for a couple of years rather than my whole life.

This I do know. The Presbyterian church has gone through much the same fracture and tearing, over many of the same issues. I served as an elder during the time when we had the "Reimagining God (http://www.layman.org/layman/news/reimagining-revival.htm)" controversy, where people were worshiping Sophia rather than God. I have seen what such controversy can do to a denomination. And yet, there is only one Reformed forum here on CF.

The Anglicans have both liberal and conservative camps within their historical tradition. They have only one forum. The Catholics, even with their centralized authority, have a tremendous amount of difference between liberal and conservative. And yet they, too, have only one forum.

I would be more interested in an all-denomination "conservative" forum, like the "liberal" forum CF has, than seeing two Lutheran forums. I think it would be a real shame, and a crushing defeat, if we cannot be adult enough to look beyond our differences, great though they may be, to the shared history and doctrine that we DO have that makes us unique.

This was such an excellent post! :thumbsup:

[DaRev]

You have two wonderful people who are believers, and they are tearing each others's hair out because of some doctrinal issue that has no bearing on salvation.

I disagree wholeheartedly on this. The only damnable sin is unbelief. How are we to be assured of our salvation when we don't believe what God clearly tells us in His word? What else do we not believe?

Lutherans have more than just heritage. We have the Confessions which are the true teachings of the Church based upon Scripture alone. When innovative doctrines are introduced, we no longer have the true teachings of the Church based on Scripture alone. The Confessions are what make Lutherans "Lutheran," not heritage (or as Michael would say "hair-a-tage";) ).

[BelindaP]

I agree with you that the only damnable sin is unbelief. Are you saying that disagreeing on close communion is the same as not believing?

[Jim47]

Zecryphon


I don't think there needs to be a consensus among mods about a violation. Either a post is a violation of the rules or it isn't. Also, explain to me why when you guys delete a post, you also delete any other post that referenced the post you deleted, when at the time the post was quoted, it was not a deleted post. I've had many of my posts deleted because I didn't uncheck that little box at the bottom of the page that says and is automatically set to "Quote message in reply?" I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to this. I've been told that quoting a deleted post is not a violation of forum policy, but have had to put up with having my posts deleted as a result of quoting a deleted post.







Quoting a post that is in violation of a forum rule is not a violation in of itself, but the quoted post that is in violation does have to be edited out per forum protocal.

If you are recieveing warings for this you need to address it with who ever is giving you the warning.

If however you also flame or bait that member you quoted in your post, then that is a violation.

[DaRev]

I am sad that while both bodies of Lutherans (ELCA/LCMS) do believe:

The Confessions are true teachings of biblical faith, This is one of the major differences. The liberal camp does not hold a quia subscription to the Confessions, so we don't have those in common.


Where we differ is:

Should we use higher critical methods when interpreting the Bible. Here is another biggie. Scripture is the authority in the Church. Higher-critical interpretation brings in outside factors in interpreting God's word, making it basically a "pick and choose what you want to believe" type of doctrine. Again, the only damnable sin is unbelief.

[ProfessorMom]

I agree with what BelindaP earlier agreed with me over. ;)

The problems are not the differences, but the flame violations which all to often include insults and hurtful comments. I would guess that if we are in the habit of flaming, or don't understand what constitute a flame, we won't necessarily stop breaking rules even if the main forum were done away with.

It is not true that we cannot discuss our differences in the main forum, or any other CF forum for that matter. I have been able to debate in the debate forums (a sometimes tough place) without flaming others. We need to learn to post within the rules.It's a matter of taking some care. One tip is that we consider reading and then rereading our posts before hitting the submit button. Here are a copy of the flaming rules.

2.1 No Flaming
You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
- Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members;
- Ridiculing another member's beliefs;
- Ridiculing public figures important to another's religious beliefs;
- Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian;
- Calling or describing other people, groups, belief-systems, or ideas as heresy or a cult (or derivatives of these words). Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;
- Asking loaded questions that directly cause flames in response;
- Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; and
- Threats of any sort, including advocating or supporting physical or mental harm against another living creature (this creature clause does not apply to political discussions of military action, hunting/fishing discussions nor ethical discussions of capital punishment).

[porterross]

I disagree wholeheartedly on this. The only damnable sin is unbelief. How are we to be assured of our salvation when we don't believe what God clearly tells us in His word? What else do we not believe?

Lutherans have more than just heritage. We have the Confessions which are the true teachings of the Church based upon Scripture alone. When innovative doctrines are introduced, we no longer have the true teachings of the Church based on Scripture alone. The Confessions are what make Lutherans "Lutheran," not heritage (or as Michael would say "hair-a-tage";) ).
I understand where Rev is coming from and I agree with the basis of what he's said here. Theology is key to identifying what doctrine you claim to adhere or else it becomes hard to know where to draw the line you'll stand firmly behind. The basic principles are what they are based on Scripture.

[BelindaP]

I know that the Confessions are what make us Lutheran. I was referring to our common heritage as a topic we could discuss in the common forum. It is one thing that unifies both conservative and liberals.

[ProfessorMom]

This is one of the major differences. The liberal camp does not hold a quia subscription to the Confessions, so we don't have those in common.

Here is another biggie. Scripture is the authority in the Church. Higher-critical interpretation brings in outside factors in interpreting God's word, making it basically a "pick and choose what you want to believe" type of doctrine. Again, the only damnable sin is unbelief.



Well, isn't this something? We got through how many pages already, and no flaming? All things are possible with God, including Lutherans talking over the fences. :)

[ProfessorMom]

While I may understand where DaRev is coming from, I don't see the need to separate further. I can understand without needing exclusivity. I can explain what I believe without flaming or belittling another's belief.

Besides, I hate to bring this up, well maybe not, but we also have Erwin's vision that is the backbone of CF, and the reason for its being in the first place.

There are plenty of forums on the Internet where we can go and be separate, discuss how right we believe we are, and post away with people who hold similar beliefs.

But here, at CF, there is a different vision. We really should consider amicable discussions and not constantly beat the other over the head pointing out what we perceive to be their errors, time and again. We should respect one another.

[DaRev]

Instead of using these emotionally charged words, please state "X is wrong because of Y" rather than using these words in polemical discussion;


I did this once and was banned for a year.

I still feel eliminating the debate, except for debate forums with strict rule enforcement, is the only way to salvage this forum. All of your comments are good and sincere, but it sin't the first time they've been suggested. And unless a change is made, it certainly won't be the last.

[BelindaP]

I think I agreed with you that debate in the common forum should be forbidden. My original post in this sub-thread was targeted toward avoiding flames.

[porterross]

Where have you reasonable, fair-minded, less conservative Lutherans been, BTW? We're not used to it. :confused:
The atmosphere might be much more pleasant for everyone if you'd visit more often. ;) :thumbsup:

[BelindaP]

I assume I'm included in that group. I've hung back because I get intimidated by the more strong-minded ones. Since I'm a convert, I'm always afraid I'll post something wrong. I guess I'll have to hang around more.

[Flipper]

Where have you reasonable, fair-minded, less conservative Lutherans been, BTW? We're not used to it. :confused:
The atmosphere might be much more pleasant for everyone if you'd visit more often. ;) :thumbsup:

Hey, I've been here! :D

[DaRev]

I would propose that the main forum be renamed "Theologica Crucis-Lutheran Fellowship" with a strict "no debate" rule enforced, such as that in the ELCA/ELCIC sub-forum. I think that the individual members of those camps do a great job of policing their own sub-forums. Moderator action in the sub-forums would only need to be upon request.

Any doctrinal debate can be done in those forums designed for such discussion. Perhaps a direct link to such a forum (perhaps GT or some other) could be included at the top of the main forum page.

Just my coupla cents, then I'll be quiet for a while before I get myself in trouble. ;)

[porterross]

I think you're spot on, Rev.

[BelindaP]

I am going to post a poll in the main forum asking just this question of the rest of the members.

Edit: I have posted the poll. Here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=4784049) is the link.

[ProfessorMom]

Where have you reasonable, fair-minded, less conservative Lutherans been, BTW? We're not used to it. :confused:
The atmosphere might be much more pleasant for everyone if you'd visit more often. ;) :thumbsup:
Are you talkin'ta me, kid?

Sorry, that's a line from some movie! I'm getting tired. :sleep:
I've enjoyed this thread. ;)

[ProfessorMom]

I did this once and was banned for a year.

:eek:

Seriously? So, you used to go by another user name...?


Just my coupla cents, then I'll be quiet for a while before I get myself in trouble. ;) I like your sense of humor!! :thumbsup:

[Melethiel]

Where have you reasonable, fair-minded, less conservative Lutherans been, BTW? We're not used to it. :confused:
The atmosphere might be much more pleasant for everyone if you'd visit more often. ;) :thumbsup:
Any hint of "liberalism" (defined in various ways) is not tolerated here. People get jumped on tooth and nail.

I know I have contributed to this, but I do not think it is right when people tear each other apart over issues that are not essential to the faith. Obviously, things like the proper interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions are important and should be discussed. However, is tearing each other apart the right way to do so?

Remember, even in the Council of Nicaea, when Bishop Nicholas punched Arius over his heresy, he was forced to apologize. And Arius was someone who certainly deserved what he had coming. ;)

This Scripture also comes to mind.

James 1:26, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."

[porterross]

Any hint of "liberalism" (defined in various ways) is not tolerated here. People get jumped on tooth and nail.

I know I have contributed to this, but I do not think it is right when people tear each other apart over issues that are not essential to the faith. Obviously, things like the proper interpretation of Scripture and the Confessions are important and should be discussed. However, is tearing each other apart the right way to do so?

Remember, even in the Council of Nicaea, when Bishop Nicholas punched Arius over his heresy, he was forced to apologize. And Arius was someone who certainly deserved what he had coming. ;)

This Scripture also comes to mind.

James 1:26, "If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless."
Uh huh, but what if it is a mod who is unable to take this to heart? Does that not indicate a possible inability to separate emotion-tied-to-theology from fai