New Forum Name, Leave it or Change it?

[JAS4Yeshua]

My personal opinion is that this forum title sounds very predjudicial, and may not accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. While I doubt we'll have any WoF members here, I'd still like a more descriptive name that doesn't sound quite so antagonistic. In addition, it isn't only WoF teachings that sometimes cause division, but Pentecostal ones as well. Therefore, I think it might be best to find a "better" name for the forum.

Here are some suggestions, please post additional suggestions if you have any, and I'll edit this first post to contain all the suggestions. We can put it to a vote at a later date.

Balanced Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic - Other
Conservative Charismatic
Moderate Charismatic
Traditional Charismatic

[NewSong]

I say leave it then there are no doubts in the mind of those who come on the forum as to the fact of what it is.

[Redheadedstepchild]

Ohhh I thought this was for charismatics who are neither WOF or pentecostal.

How about Charismatic-Other?

What does Balanced Charismatic mean?

Is there such a thing as a liberal charismatic?

BTW, I don't have an official vote. I lean charismatic but can't say for sure.;)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Ohhh I thought this was for charismatics who are neither WOF or pentecostal.
That is one of the reasons I don't like the current title. Others might disagree with me on this, and we'll go with the majority as expected.

From discussions about this forum, I've taken a stance letting this forum be available for the Charismatics who don't agree with the divisive teachings, such as healing, prosperity, slain in the Spirit, or how the Spirit disperses the gifts among the believers. This division will automatically disclude almost all WoF because it is completely contrary to what they believe. This won't necessarily disclude Pentecostals, though, as I've seen many who agree and many who disagree on the teachings.

How about Charismatic-Other?
Good suggestion. Will add to list.

What does Balanced Charismatic mean?
Balanced, Moderate and Conservative were terms that I posted to get the list started. They come from my view of the WoF teachings being too extreme and out of balance with what God taught in His Word. I know others think the same, as there have been countless debates on the subject. Therefore, I thought of terms that could be used to more adequately explain our views towards Charisma (or Charismania. ;))

Is there such a thing as a liberal charismatic?
I've never heard of it. If the question is in reference to "Conservative Charismatic" I hope my previous explanation is sufficient. ;)

BTW, I don't have an official vote. I lean charismatic but can't say for sure.;)
No problem. I'll add your suggestion to the list. This isn't actually an official vote as of yet, more an opinion gathering stage to see how others view the forum. :)

[SirTimothy]

Traditional Charismatic would be my wording.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Traditional Charismatic would be my wording.
I like that one. Adding it to the list. :)

[Criada]

I'd go for traditional charismatic or conservative charismatic.
Could be very hard to define who can debate and who can't, though!
And - your post *4 is a little extreme isn't it, Jas?
Am certainly not WoF, but I do believe in healing! And I think that all Christians do.
I know this isn't a 'rules' post or discussion - but I think you may be in danger of excluding an awful lot of people.

I do know what you mean, and agree really - just, we need to be careful how we word things!!

God bless you, brother - I am awed by the amount of time and effort you are putting into this!

[Simon Peter]

My personal opinion is that this forum title sounds very predjudicial, and may not accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. ... Therefore, I think it might be best to find a "better" name for the forum.


Hi Jas

Thanks for grabbing the ball and running with it. :thumbsup:

Please remember that this forum title was chosen to accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. Not the other way around.

Though I agree that the title may be construed as prejudicial, I think it's important to leave the name as is for the time being. Please don't rush to change it.

Once this forum, its membership, guidelines and rules are established, perhaps some months from now, then we can consider renaming it to something more PC.

Hopefully we can put our energy into some guidelines and rules that get this community off on the right foot. :D

God Bless
Simon

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'd go for traditional charismatic or conservative charismatic.
Could be very hard to define who can debate and who can't, though!
And - your post *4 is a little extreme isn't it, Jas?
Am certainly not WoF, but I do believe in healing! And I think that all Christians do.
I know this isn't a 'rules' post or discussion - but I think you may be in danger of excluding an awful lot of people.

I do know what you mean, and agree really - just, we need to be careful how we word things!!

God bless you, brother - I am awed by the amount of time and effort you are putting into this!
I agree, things will need to be worded properly. This was just a rough "bullet point" of where we differ, not the final word of the rules. Each "bullet point" will need to be expanded when we're discussing the rules. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Hi Jas

Thanks for grabbing the ball and running with it. :thumbsup:

Please remember that this forum title was chosen to accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. Not the other way around.

Though I agree that the title may be construed as prejudicial, I think it's important to leave the name as is for the time being. Please don't rush to change it.

Once this forum, its membership, guidelines and rules are established, perhaps some months from now, then we can consider renaming it to something more PC.

Hopefully we can put our energy into some guidelines and rules that get this community off on the right foot. :D

God Bless
Simon
I do agree with getting this off on the right foot, that's for sure. I also agree that it needs to accurately reflect our membership. My personal opinion is that it doesn't, which is why I started the thread. But like I said, it is a personal opinion, so it can be discarded by the members if the others, like yourself, disagree with me. ;)

[NewSong]

I do agree with getting this off on the right foot, that's for sure. I also agree that it needs to accurately reflect our membership. My personal opinion is that it doesn't, which is why I started the thread. But like I said, it is a personal opinion, so it can be discarded by the members if the others, like yourself, disagree with me. ;)
Me neither technically speaking. :)

[Anthonyw]

Charismatic other, sounds good to me, I never heard of the other proposed titles.


Blessings,
Anthony:)

[robbymac]

1. I think that "non-WoF" should stay in the title. I don't mean to be rude, but it's typically been the WoF proponents (some, not all!) who have been derailing threads that talk about charismatic issues but who don't share the health & wealth, prosperity paradigm.


By leaving "non-WoF" in the title, we would be setting a clear statement about who should not be posting here or particularly not be leaving flaming comments against non-WoF people.

2. Would "traditional/classic" charismatic cover things like Calvary Chapel or Vineyard. or would it sound like it was referring primarily to mainline denominations that believe the "full gospel"?

Not trying to quibble, just curious.
:liturgy:

[JAS4Yeshua]

If you noticed Dids' posts in the New Forum thread, you will see my original post being confirmed. He won't be alone in that assuption, either. Do we REALLY want to be viewed that way?

Do his views and beliefs affect me, or my relationship with God? Absolutely not. At the same time, though, we should be above reproach and do our best to avoid the appearance of evil.

For that reason, I do suggest that we decide on the name for the forum soon. Are there any other suggestions, or should I just start a new poll to determine what name we should use?

[JAS4Yeshua]

1. I think that "non-WoF" should stay in the title. I don't mean to be rude, but it's typically been the WoF proponents (some, not all!) who have been derailing threads that talk about charismatic issues but who don't share the health & wealth, prosperity paradigm.


By leaving "non-WoF" in the title, we would be setting a clear statement about who should not be posting here or particularly not be leaving flaming comments against non-WoF people.

2. Would "traditional/classic" charismatic cover things like Calvary Chapel or Vineyard. or would it sound like it was referring primarily to mainline denominations that believe the "full gospel"?

Not trying to quibble, just curious.
:liturgy:
Well, I just addressed issue 1 in my previous post. ;)

Issue 2 would cover that, if we agree upon it. I attend Calvary Chapel, so I don't see a problem there. I'd be interested to hear what someone from Vineyard thinks, but I don't think it will be a problem.

[geetrue]

Though I agree that the title may be construed as prejudicial, I think it's important to leave the name as is for the time being. Please don't rush to change it.

Once this forum, its membership, guidelines and rules are established, perhaps some months from now, then we can consider renaming it to something more PC.

Hopefully we can put our energy into some guidelines and rules that get this community off on the right foot. :D

God Bless
Simon

That makes sense to me ... were just getting the ball rolling.

We don't even know where we stand with each other yet. Probably be some door slaming and some promises to never come back, but the one thing we don't want is for people to say that we are not charismatic.

Besides the only people that have to forgive us is WOF'ers and according to thy Word they have to, right? "Forgive even as you have been forgiven"

But when it comes time to rename ... just PM the charismatic posters to vote. If they answer they answer ...

[Simon Peter]

Hi Jas

Thanks for grabbing the ball and running with it. :thumbsup:

Please remember that this forum title was chosen to accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. Not the other way around.

Though I agree that the title may be construed as prejudicial, I think it's important to leave the name as is for the time being. Please don't rush to change it.

Once this forum, its membership, guidelines and rules are established, perhaps some months from now, then we can consider renaming it to something more PC.

Hopefully we can put our energy into some guidelines and rules that get this community off on the right foot. :D
God Bless
Simon


I do agree with getting this off on the right foot, that's for sure. I also agree that it needs to accurately reflect our membership. My personal opinion is that it doesn't, which is why I started the thread. But like I said, it is a personal opinion, so it can be discarded by the members if the others, like yourself, disagree with me. ;)

Sorry Jason, perhaps my post wasn't explained well. I guess I am am trying to say, that when I requested this sub-forum, I requested specifically a sub-forum that was charismatic and non-WoF. That was the sub-forum that I had in mind, and that was the sub-forum that was approved and initiated.

By attempting to change the name before it is even 24 hours old, you are quite possibly changing the focus and intent of the sub-forum. So to put it more bluntly, if you have something different in mind, you are able to go the same route that I did, and suggest another sub-forum with a name of your choosing. ;)

So when I said "this forum title was chosen to accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. Not the other way around." what I meant was that we need to let the title that was approved determine the membership, not just let anyone on the SF forum come in here and imediately change the name to suit those who were posting that day.

Give the approved sub-forum name a decent period of time to attract those it was intended to. Then, after some months, once it is established, we can consider changing the name to something more PC.

Does this make sense? :scratch:

Thanks,
Simon

[SirTimothy]

Give the approved sub-forum name a decent period of time to attract those it was intended to. Then, after some months, once it is established, we can consider changing the name to something more PC.


This sounds like wisdom to me.

[robbymac]

If you noticed Dids' posts in the New Forum thread, you will see my original post being confirmed. He won't be alone in that assuption, either. Do we REALLY want to be viewed that way?

Yes, I DID see the post from Dids, and for me, it just confirmed that the non-WOF moniker needs to stay. WOF gets their own private forum, where they can discuss things with like-minded people and they don't have to put up with people derailing their posts with different agendas.

Dids' use of "prejudice" and "hatred" was offensive, and hypocritical, since they already have their own forum. When they insist on free reign in ALL the forums, then basically SF/PC becomes WOF-controlled, and anyone who disagrees and is tired of being flamed and mocked by WOF people will simply leave the forum (as many already have).

So frankly, I wouldn't worry about their perception of this proposed sub-forum -- they make no secret of their antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with them, and I suspect what they're most afraid of is not being about to have complete and total freedom to post wherever they feel like, while denying people the same privileges in the WOF sub-forum.

The larger question seems to be: Will WOF control the whole SF/PC forum (and sub-forums), or will other voices be given the same rights and protection that WOF claim for themselves?
:liturgy:

[talitha]

The larger question seems to be: Will WOF control the whole SF/PC forum (and sub-forums), or will other voices be given the same rights and protection that WOF claim for themselves?
Good question.

[JAS4Yeshua]

My whole point is to get past all of that and get to the bottom line. What is the bottom line? The statements that were made by Timothy and posted in the wiki. Yes, those rules automatically remove almost all (if not all) Word of Faith believers automatically.

If a Charismatic Christian, regardless of what other names they call themselves, agrees with the statements in the rules, then let's not worry if they say they are "Word of Faith" or "Pentecostal."

Obviously we won't be changing the forum name now, which is what the majority seems to favor. I'm fine with that. But I will state my views regarding that, because it is what I think we should be striving towards. Common theological stand, not a stand based on predjudice, hate, or defensive reactions to those same un-Christian attitudes.

[NewSong]

Yay!

[flyingsum0]

The name sounds good to me if teh other forums dont like it then thats their problem

[Tamara224]

Yes, I DID see the post from Dids, and for me, it just confirmed that the non-WOF moniker needs to stay. WOF gets their own private forum, where they can discuss things with like-minded people and they don't have to put up with people derailing their posts with different agendas.

Dids' use of "prejudice" and "hatred" was offensive, and hypocritical, since they already have their own forum. When they insist on free reign in ALL the forums, then basically SF/PC becomes WOF-controlled, and anyone who disagrees and is tired of being flamed and mocked by WOF people will simply leave the forum (as many already have).

So frankly, I wouldn't worry about their perception of this proposed sub-forum -- they make no secret of their antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with them, and I suspect what they're most afraid of is not being about to have complete and total freedom to post wherever they feel like, while denying people the same privileges in the WOF sub-forum.

The larger question seems to be: Will WOF control the whole SF/PC forum (and sub-forums), or will other voices be given the same rights and protection that WOF claim for themselves?
:liturgy:


:thumbsup:

[JK]

Yes, I DID see the post from Dids, and for me, it just confirmed that the non-WOF moniker needs to stay. WOF gets their own private forum, where they can discuss things with like-minded people and they don't have to put up with people derailing their posts with different agendas.

Dids' use of "prejudice" and "hatred" was offensive, and hypocritical, since they already have their own forum. When they insist on free reign in ALL the forums, then basically SF/PC becomes WOF-controlled, and anyone who disagrees and is tired of being flamed and mocked by WOF people will simply leave the forum (as many already have).

So frankly, I wouldn't worry about their perception of this proposed sub-forum -- they make no secret of their antagonism towards anyone who disagrees with them, and I suspect what they're most afraid of is not being about to have complete and total freedom to post wherever they feel like, while denying people the same privileges in the WOF sub-forum.

The larger question seems to be: Will WOF control the whole SF/PC forum (and sub-forums), or will other voices be given the same rights and protection that WOF claim for themselves?
:liturgy:

I totally agree with everything you say here. We really need to clearly keep our own identity away from WOF

[jeolmstead]

I agree with Robby. I’ve never been to the WOF sub forum. I’m not WOF. I know it. They know it.

I’m happy they have their own forum. Knowing what they believe I would not purposely go on their site and offend them.

Why should they begrudge a few of us the same privilege?

Yet, One day in and we have already been visited and told that our exclusivity is prejudicial.

Do people typically do that on the WOF forum? (Honest question, having never been there I don’t know)

I have debated the scriptures with them in the SFPC forum and found that they are not interested in what I believe so I stopped.

I’ve found that others who feel as I do get slammed when we have a thread that does not agree with them.

The WOF sub forum has been around a long time. An attempt to have “something else” (i.e. post charismatic) was ridiculed, and shot down by those (mainly WOF) who claim we can’t define it, so we can’t have it .

I think Charismatic Non-WOF is no more prejudicial then one called WOF and it is descriptive as to what one would expect to find here

John O.

[geetrue]

I don't think it hurt the new Charismatic forum to announce and warn others that we were in violation of the rules in the thread that Pete started.

More people came to take a look than they would have normally. Several reported that they didn't see any wrong doing.

All that's left is that we don't become our own worst enemy.

By the way what do Charismatic non-WOF people talk about? :D

We need a list of subjects or do we just wing it?

How about, "What do lambs do when they catch a wolf in sheep's clothing"?

or

"Do you think Adam and Eve had a navel"?

or

"Where did all of those people come from that got mad at Cain"?

or

Okay, it's ya'll's turn ... I'm sure no one will post in those threads.

[JAS4Yeshua]

We talk about whatever we want to talk about. Like, "How's the weather where you are?" :D

[he4rty]

I know we said we would wait for the name change, but with the heat we are getting from certain areas, Just thought of this and if I don't post it now I'll forget

The Rest of The Best

fits in with the fruit analogy.

[FoundInGrace]

I think charimatic-non wof is fine for now

This subforum sits right by the subforum for wof and pentecostal so it's clear for people visiting the site that it's slightly different from those forums which is helpful.

part of what i liked about this subforum was that there would be no debates on wof "hot topics" that just go round and round so it simply solves that without too much drama hpefully. I personally think it is a necessity from that angle. No offense is meant, just practical.

[synger]

I'm beginning to lean toward "Charismatic - Other".

It is not exclusionary like "Charismatic". If the subforums were Pentecostal, Word of Faith, and Charismatic, one could assume that P and WF were not considered Charismatic.

It is not antagonistic like "Charismatic - non-WoF". WE know that we're just talking about a couple of doctrinal points, but it makes it seem like WoF are not welcome at all here. Or that we hate them and their doctrines. I don't think that's the point we want to make.

Getting back to the berries analogy (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36850617&postcount=29): If you see three bags -- Strawberries, Blueberries, and Berries - Other -- you know at a glance that if there are any boysenberries or blackberries, you will find them in the third bag.

I don't think the rancor that is bubbling up due to the current name is worth the trouble it's causing. It's not like we have a united name for ourselves that we're fighting for.

We should call our forum "Bob" rather than allow this issue to cause our brethren to stumble into bitterness and anger!

Just change the forum name to something else. "Charismatic-Other" is the most accurate option we have so far.

[Tamara224]

I'm beginning to lean toward "Charismatic - Other".

It is not exclusionary like "Charismatic". If the subforums were Pentecostal, Word of Faith, and Charismatic, one could assume that P and WF were not considered Charismatic.

It is not antagonistic like "Charismatic - non-WoF". WE know that we're just talking about a couple of doctrinal points, but it makes it seem like WoF are not welcome at all here. Or that we hate them and their doctrines. I don't think that's the point we want to make.

Getting back to the berries analogy (http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=36850617&postcount=29): If you see three bags -- Strawberries, Blueberries, and Berries - Other -- you know at a glance that if there are any boysenberries or blackberries, you will find them in the third bag.

I don't think the rancor that is bubbling up due to the current name is worth the trouble it's causing. It's not like we have a united name for ourselves that we're fighting for.

We should call our forum "Bob" rather than allow this issue to cause our brethren to stumble into bitterness and anger!

Just change the forum name to something else. "Charismatic-Other" is the most accurate option we have so far.


Good idea Synger.


However, I'd like to remind everyone that the rancor is being caused by a very vocal minority. A very small minority - like 2 people. One of whom is notorious for stirring up strife and is, in fact, very anti-non-WoF.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I agree with synger. I think we should change to Charismatic - Other

And Tamara is correct as well, there are two vocal ones. But I can't help but wonder if there are others who may be offended, yet not speaking up.

[didaskalos]

It is not antagonistic like "Charismatic - non-WoF". WE know that we're just talking about a couple of doctrinal points, but it makes it seem like WoF are not welcome at all here. Or that we hate them and their doctrines. I don't think that's the point we want to make...

hmmmmmm.....

[he4rty]

hmmmmmm.....

You Hum it and I'll play it.:D

I vote for Charismatic-Other.:thumbsup:

[he4rty]

Question Dids - would you be happy if the forum was called Charismatic others - A place for those who are not associated with P/wof.

[didaskalos]

Question Dids - would you be happy if the forum was called Charismatic others - A place for those who are not associated with P/wof.
That would be very nice.
I might even add a supportive post once in a while!
As it stands... this just really looks bad and should be taken to the executive (if there even is one any more).

[LeadWorship]

We should call our forum "Bob" rather than allow this issue to cause our brethren to stumble into bitterness and anger!

I'll go for that!

I've really been giving this some thought, and it seems some folks have been merely looking at this based on appearances only. It's much like worship: there's style and there's substance. We know we truly worship when our style (outward expression) matches our substance (what's in our hearts).

So that being said, and I think most here agree, that the name change forthcoming is a good thing. I like the Charismatic-Other point as well.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I never thought "Charismatic- Non-WoF" meant that any charismatic EXCEPT WoF can come here. I understood it to mean "we are charismatic, but not in the WoF sense. We have varying views from WoF". Of course, I could be wrong... it happens. ;)

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'll go for that!

I've really been giving this some thought, and it seems some folks have been merely looking at this based on appearances only. It's much like worship: there's style and there's substance. We know we truly worship when our style (outward expression) matches our substance (what's in our hearts).

So that being said, and I think most here agree, that the name change forthcoming is a good thing. I like the Charismatic-Other point as well.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I never thought "Charismatic- Non-WoF" meant that any charismatic EXCEPT WoF can come here. I understood it to mean "we are charismatic, but not in the WoF sense. We have varying views from WoF". Of course, I could be wrong... it happens. ;)
You're correct. :)

[Simon Peter]

This sub-forum has already decided the name, and it is 'Charismatic Non-WoF'. If some members wobble on this, they will only encourage LL in his personal and vitriolic campaign.

I would just like to remind people about the birth of Protestantism. As we all know, the Christian church is traditionally split into three major branches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant.

Most of us on the SF forum belong to that branch of Christianity called "Protestant".

The name ‘Protestant’ comes from the word ‘PROTEST’. The Protestants protested the beliefs, practices and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.

If they'd called themselves 'Christian Non-Roman Catholic' this would have been less 'anti-Roman Catholic'. PROTESTant made it clear that they went a step further and actually PROTESTED against Roman Catholic doctrines and beliefs.

In this forum we aren't nearly going that far. We have merely labeled ourselves 'non', not 'anti-WoF' or 'Charismatics OBJECTING to WoF'.

So it’s nothing new to label a portion of the church by what they disagree with. I love my Roman Catholic, and my WoF brothers, but I'm proud to be a Protestant, and a Charismatic who is "non-WoF".

[he4rty]

Going to repost this suggestion in case it was missed

Charismatic - Other
A subforum for members who do not associate fully with Pentecostal/Wof teachings

[Simon Peter]

Hi He4rty,

Did you see my post #49 ?

Please don't encourage LL, the name of this forum has already been decided...

[Tamara224]

Hi He4rty,

Did you see my post #49 ?

Please don't encourage LL, the name of this forum has already been decided...


At this point, I'm rather ambivalent.

I think that it's possible the name might change in the future.

But for now, maybe we should do like we originally agreed and leave it the way it is while we get settled in.

[he4rty]

Hi He4rty,

Did you see my post #49 ?

Please don't encourage LL, the name of this forum has already been decided...

I did and I'm not bowing down to anyone, I just think the suggestion I made says the same thing but in a politer way.

[JAS4Yeshua]

And, for the record, I started this thread when the forum was first created, before the incident with Dids began, so I'm not bowing to his opinion anyways. ;)

I agree with hearty. :)

[Tamara224]

And, for the record, I started this thread when the forum was first created, before the incident with Dids began, so I'm not bowing to his opinion anyways. ;)

I agree with hearty. :)


Sorry guys, I didn't mean to imply that you were motivated by Dids posts. I know you want it for your own reasons.

But, IMO, the idea that the title, as it is, is offensive is kind of questionable. Dids has demonstrated an unreasonable position here. I don't think it is offensive, it is just descriptive. Because of the way this forum is, many of us want a place to discuss things where the most we have in common is the fact that none of us agree with WoF doctrines. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with calling the forum what it is: Charismatic Non-WoF.

JMO, of course.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I didn't think you were, Tamara. I was actually replying to Simon Peter about encouraging Dids. ;)

[Simon Peter]

At this point, I'm rather ambivalent.

I think that it's possible the name might change in the future.

But for now, maybe we should do like we originally agreed and leave it the way it is while we get settled in.

I agree completely.

Partly because the name that was democratically agreeded upon, should not be changed because of the unreasonable pressure of someone who doesn't even belong in this forum.

Good research exposing LL's duplicity btw...
Shame your post got deleted!!! Not sure why, as I'm not aware how it could have broken any rules.

[Jimbeaux]

I say leave it then there are no doubts in the mind of those who come on the forum as to the fact of what it is.

Agreed. Since WOF seems to want to deliberately distinguish itself from every other faith group in this SFPC forum, disagreeing with almost every orthodox interpretation of scripture, and talking to us in the most patronizing terms, I feel we need to make it clear that there is a big, BIG difference between WOF and the rest of SFPC. If they want to be different we should accommodate them and distinguish ourselves from them.

~Jim

If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.

[probinson]

I agree completely.

Partly because the name that was democratically agreeded upon, should not be changed because of the unreasonable pressure of someone who doesn't even belong in this forum.

Good research exposing LL's duplicity btw...
Shame your post got deleted!!! Not sure why, as I'm not aware how it could have broken any rules.
To answer your question...

There were a number of posts that responded to LL's posts that were deleted. It is common practice to remove the replies to deleted posts, or at the very least, edit them so that the flow of the thread remains in tact. In this case, since all of LL's posts were removed, responses to those posts are no longer relevant.

Bottom line: When you report someone and ask to have them FSB'd and their posts removed, don't be surprised when your replies to those posts are removed also.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread, already in progress....

[SirTimothy]

There were a number of posts that responded to LL's posts that were deleted. It is common practice to remove the replies to deleted posts, or at the very least, edit them so that the flow of the thread remains in tact. In this case, since all of LL's posts were removed, responses to those posts are no longer relevant.

I can attest this is normal staff procedure (and I'm thoroughly impressed with Pete's efficiency. Kudos to you, Pete, you're one of the best mods around!) I wasn't surprised that some of mine were removed.

Tim

[Tamara224]

I can attest this is normal staff procedure (and I'm thoroughly impressed with Pete's efficiency. Kudos to you, Pete, you're one of the best mods around!) I wasn't surprised that some of mine were removed.

Tim


LOL, I was rather surprised mine were removed. But that's just because I forgot to check the reports and see if anyone had reported LL in this thread. :doh:

But, I'm fine with it and I think Pete did a fine job. :thumbsup:

[jeolmstead]

LOL, I was rather surprised mine were removed. But that's just because I forgot to check the reports and see if anyone had reported LL in this thread. :doh:

But, I'm fine with it and I think Pete did a fine job. :thumbsup:
It's the first time I ever had a post removed...I'm not really sure how to take it....It really kinda makes me look bad. I hope some of you got to read it before it was deemed unsuitable.

John O.

[JAS4Yeshua]

I don't think it was that it was unsuitable, John, just wasn't in context anymore, since the other posts surrounding it were deleted.

[Tamara224]

It's the first time I ever had a post removed...I'm not really sure how to take it....It really kinda makes me look bad. I hope some of you got to read it before it was deemed unsuitable.

John O.


It doesn't make you look bad. I think I got to read it before it was gone... But, I can't remember because I can't go look at it again to refresh my memory. :doh:

Anyway, it wasn't deleted because you said something wrong. It was just deleted because once LL's posts were gone, it wouldn't have made any sense and/or it quoted something he said.

[Wigglesworth]

Fresh Wind Fresh Fire

would be a nice name for the subforum. I realize many members have settled on the current name. But, the forum specific rules could set limits well enough to deal with hostility from other Spirit/spirit-filled members.

[TasManOfGod]

Any label that would not appear to invite people to post (by their inclusion in the name) and then prevent them from doing so would be a good one as far as a WoFer would be concerned

[Jimbeaux]

My personal opinion is that this forum title sounds very predjudicial, and may not accurately reflect the membership of this subforum. While I doubt we'll have any WoF members here, I'd still like a more descriptive name that doesn't sound quite so antagonistic. In addition, it isn't only WoF teachings that sometimes cause division, but Pentecostal ones as well. Therefore, I think it might be best to find a "better" name for the forum.

Here are some suggestions, please post additional suggestions if you have any, and I'll edit this first post to contain all the suggestions. We can put it to a vote at a later date.

Balanced Charismatic
Charismatic
Charismatic - Other
Conservative Charismatic
Moderate Charismatic
Traditional Charismatic

Aren’t you WOF? (I wouldn't blame you if you denied it.)

And are you trying to control this expressly non-WOF forum?

I would ask that you leave this subforum alone, JAS. You have your own WOF forum to post in that identifies you for who you are—a Big Bad WOF. Some of us don’t want any newbie who comes into the SFPC forum to think that all of us are victims of WOF theology and would like for their to be a “Non-WOF” distinction between us.

We didn’t start the labeling—WOF did. We just want a clear disnction and the present title says it.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?

[probinson]

Aren’t you WOF? (I wouldn't blame you if you denied it.)

And are you trying to control this expressly non-WOF forum?

I would ask that you leave this subforum alone, JAS. You have your own WOF forum to post in that identifies you for who you are—a Big Bad WOF. Some of us don’t want any newbie who comes into the SFPC forum to think that all of us are victims of WOF theology and would like for their to be a “Non-WOF” distinction between us.

We didn’t start the labeling—WOF did. We just want a clear disnction and the present title says it.

I'm just quoting this because I find it pretty comical that one of the guys who was integral in the creation of this forum and has openly admitted being non-WoF, perhaps even anti-WoF, is now being accused by Jim of being "WoF", just because he disagrees with his post.

:holy:

[Simon Peter]

—a Big Bad WOF.

lol - that's funny :D

I do think you have a case of mistaken identity Jim.
Jas is probably further from WoF than most of us here. But I don't think he's anti-WoF, partly evidenced by his attempts to give this sub-forum a more PC name.

[Tamara224]

I'm just quoting this because I find it pretty comical that one of the guys who was integral in the creation of this forum and has openly admitted being non-WoF, perhaps even anti-WoF, is now being accused by Jim of being "WoF", just because he disagrees with his post.

:holy:


Oh give it a rest, Pete. We don't need you pointing out anything.

[Jimbeaux]

lol - that's funny :D

I do think you have a case of mistaken identity Jim.
Jas is probably further from WoF than most of us here. But I don't think he's anti-WoF, partly evidenced by his attempts to give this sub-forum a more PC name.

If that’s the case, my sincerest apologies to JAS.

~Jim
Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?

[Jimbeaux]

I'm just quoting this because I find it pretty comical that one of the guys who was integral in the creation of this forum and has openly admitted being non-WoF, perhaps even anti-WoF, is now being accused by Jim of being "WoF", just because he disagrees with his post.

:holy:

Um, Pete, don’t you belong in the WOF subforum? Are you here just to stir a little strife?

I was asked once when I posted in the WOF forum to get out and stay out (I paraphrase), that I was not welcome in their exclusive little huddle and I have never been back. What’s good for the goose …

BTW, I was not in favor of this -- or any other -- subforum and said so many times. But since it’s here and I am definitely anti-WOF (in spades) I come here from time to time because I get a little tired of the same old same old in the general SFPC forum.

~Jim

Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?

[probinson]

Um, Pete, don’t you belong in the WOF subforum? Are you here just to stir a little strife?
Actually, quite the opposite. As the Supermoderator of this area, all subforums in SF/PC fall under my jurisdiction. I am here to act as an agent of the rules each forum creates for themselves, which your wrongful accusation of JAS did not promote.

[Jimbeaux]

[/size][/font]Actually, quite the opposite. As the Supermoderator of this area, all subforums in SF/PC fall under my jurisdiction. I am here to act as an agent of the rules each forum creates for themselves, which your wrongful accusation of JAS did not promote.

Then, the JAS thing aside, which I apologized to him (not you) for ... remember?... shouldn’t you, as a “moderator”, much less a SUPERmoderator, try to be a little less one-sided and opinionated in this forum?

Moderators moderate, don't they?

~Jim
Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?

[probinson]

Then, the JAS thing aside, which I apologized to him (not you) for ... remember?... shouldn’t you, as a “moderator”, much less a SUPERmoderator, try to be a little less one-sided and opinionated in this forum?

Moderators moderate, don't they?



Being a staff member has nothing to do with my personal convictions, beliefs and opinions, and if you review the reports forum, you'll see that to be the case. I don't moderate based on my beliefs or an agenda. I moderate based on the rules.

[J4Jesus]

Going to repost this suggestion in case it was missed

Charismatic - Other
A subforum for members who do not associate fully with Pentecostal/Wof teachings

I did and I'm not bowing down to anyone, I just think the suggestion I made says the same thing but in a politer way.
hmmmm...
"...who do not associate fully..." ? :(

Wouldn't if be even more polite to say it this way?

Charismatic - Other
"(not affiliated with Pentecostal/Wof) " :)


Before anyone gets upset JAS4Yeshua said I can post here, ask questions ( those are questions ^_^ ), fellowship . He's neat :thumbsup:

By the way where is he? I haven't seen him for days :sigh: Is he ok?

[Jimbeaux]

Being a staff member has nothing to do with my personal convictions, beliefs and opinions, and if you review the reports forum, you'll see that to be the case. I don't moderate based on my beliefs or an agenda. I moderate based on the rules.

Okay. :sigh:

~Jim
Why do we prefer problems that are familiar to solutions that are not?

[J4Jesus]

-----------

But, I'm fine with it and I think Pete did a fine job. :thumbsup:

:eek:

[probinson]

I really don't want this to turn into a thread about me. So let me finish by saying this...

I try to do the best I can to moderate fairly. That does not mean that I can not voice my own strongly held beliefs and opinions (in the SF main forum, not here). What it does mean is that I can not make my staff decisions based on those beliefs and opinions, but based on the rules of each sub forum.

As of now, I am the only moderator for the entire SF area, save for one other moderator that is on loan from another team. That will change soon, as we have some moderators in training that will be joining us soon, and flaglady will return from her leave shortly.

I was an advocate for this forum, and I have stood against those that claim that the name is prejudicial. The name was chosen to make a forum that was the polar opposite of the WoF forum. IOW, if you debate in one, you can not debate in the other. That was the only purpose for the creation of the forum, nothing more, nothing less. If the forum membership is happy with the name, then leave it. If not, then you can do whatever the forum majority wants to do. It's your forum, and the only thing the staff is here for is to help enforce the guidelines and regulations that you create.

Having said all that, though it's obvious that I don't agree with y'all doctrinally, I can still moderate objectively based upon the rules that you create for yourselves. Also, please know that I am accountable to staff further up the chain of command, so if you ever do have a problem with my staff work, please feel free to contact one of my superiors (which can be found in the "Staff" link in the navigation bar), who will be happy to assist you.

[Jimbeaux]

Thanx, Pete. I, for one, can accept this and will hope that this forum will be a safe place for non-WOF’ers just as the WOF forum is for those of your persuasion and that we will limit debate to the general SF forum.

~Jim

The difference between a luxury and a necessity depends on whether you have it or someone else.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Thanks to those who spoke up for me in my absense. Just as an FYI, in case you missed it in any of my other posts, Jim. I attend Calvary Chapel and agree with its teachings, which is further from Word of Faith than Vineyard, I believe. ;)

[J4Jesus]

Thanks to those who spoke up for me in my absense. Just as an FYI, in case you missed it in any of my other posts, Jim. I attend Calvary Chapel and agree with its teachings, which is further from Word of Faith than Vineyard, I believe. ;)
That's true it is.
But I like you anyway. I can't help myself :P

[JAS4Yeshua]

I don't know abut anyone else, but I personally am getting tired of defending the forum name, or trying to explain it to new people. The forum name has just caused too much confusion.

Is it too much to ask to consider trying to revisit the forum name change? I think most people were happy with "Charismatic - Other" for a name. Of all the names, I know that would be one I prefer.

[Tamara224]

I don't know abut anyone else, but I personally am getting tired of defending the forum name, or trying to explain it to new people. The forum name has just caused too much confusion.

Is it too much to ask to consider trying to revisit the forum name change? I think most people were happy with "Charismatic - Other" for a name. Of all the names, I know that would be one I prefer.


I don't know... I think if it's not this, it's going to be something else. I like the clear line, to be honest. Because the WoFers who are arguing about it are being completely unreasonable, IMO. I'd rather we just not do anything based on a desire to please or pacify WoFers with ruffled feathers.

[JesusIsMyBoaz]

How about Charismatic with a Seatbelt? Paster Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA, uses that term to describe himself. And I've heard him describe his beliefs very much down the line from what I understand that Non-WOF means. (Thanks to all of your who've been helping me to "get it")

[JesusIsMyBoaz]

I don't know abut anyone else, but I personally am getting tired of defending the forum name, or trying to explain it to new people. The forum name has just caused too much confusion.

Is it too much to ask to consider trying to revisit the forum name change? I think most people were happy with "Charismatic - Other" for a name. Of all the names, I know that would be one I prefer.
Amen! Curiosity is what made me look at this forum. And I had tons of questions about it.

[he4rty]

Charismatic - Other
"(not affiliated with Pentecostal/Wof) "This was another suggestion that I could go with, don't forget we have that little sentence under the forum name to describe more what we are about.

As for the current name if it is causing strife which it is then I think we should change it.

[geetrue]

Let's just call it "Charismatic" a Chrismatic sub forum. Let people visit the other two sub forums and make up their own mind.

I don't mind the Word of Faith people, just using those three little letters is a negative to me, posting in here.

Why can't we have our own friendly sticky about Word of Faith. They can post in it anytime they want to. Anything they disagree with just cut and paste to the sticky.

We could work some things out in the Charismatic sub forum that they won't allow in the Word of Faith forum.

We could vote not to talk about Word of Faith people/threads/beliefs in the threads and postings of the Charismatic sub forum, except in the sticky.

Just keep a sticky of friendly batter going back and forth between Word of Faith and Charismatic's.

I respect Tamara's view of not bending, because they want us too, but I like He4rty suggestion too ...
lets change it and I say change the name to just plain "Charismatic" sub forum.

Most people will understand and the chance to get some objections out into the open can be limited to one sticky.
This is a sticky situation. :help:

Let's respect them first of all and stop calling them WOF'ers, WOF's, WOF, non-WOF ... it looks like graffiti. It is a slap in the face.;

Come on lets start a poll, not me, and change the name as long as were voiting for an icon too.

We could even come out of this looking like Christians, uh? :D

Question:
Where does wisdom come from?
Answer:
Above ...
Question:
and what does wisdom that comes from above do?
Answer:
It is pure and peaceable and gentle, willing to yield.
St James 3:17

[Tamara224]

Let's just call it "Charismatic" a Chrismatic sub forum. Let people visit the other two sub forums and make up their own mind.

I don't mind the Word of Faith people, just using those three little letters is a negative to me, posting in here.

Why can't we have our own friendly sticky about Word of Faith. They can post in it anytime they want to. Anything they disagree with just cut and paste to the sticky.

We could work some things out in the Charismatic sub forum that they won't allow in the Word of Faith forum.

We could vote not to talk about Word of Faith people/threads/beliefs in the threads and postings of the Charismatic sub forum, except in the sticky.

Just keep a sticky of friendly batter going back and forth between Word of Faith and Charismatic's.

I respect Tamara's view of not bending, because they want us too, but I like He4rty suggestion too ...
lets change it and I say change the name to just plain "Charismatic" sub forum.

Most people will understand and the chance to get some objections out into the open can be limited to one sticky.
This is a sticky situation. :help:

Let's respect them first of all and stop calling them WOF'ers, WOF's, WOF, non-WOF ... it looks like graffiti. It is a slap in the face.;

Come on lets start a poll, not me, and change the name as long as were voiting for an icon too.

We could even come out of this looking like Christians, uh? :D

Question:
Where does wisdom come from?
Answer:
Above ...
Question:
and what does wisdom that comes from above do?
Answer:
It is pure and peaceable and gentle, willing to yield.
St James 3:17


Geetrue... Will you please stop being so reasonable and likeable and, well, Spirit-filled. It's really making me feel bad. ;)

Okay. I agree, let's start a poll in this forum (not the main one)

I think just plain 'Charismatic' is good... And for the subtitle: "A forum for Spirit Filled believers who are not affiliated with Pentecostal and/or Word of Faith."

[probinson]

Let's just call it "Charismatic" a Chrismatic sub forum. Let people visit the other two sub forums and make up their own mind.

I don't mind the Word of Faith people, just using those three little letters is a negative to me, posting in here.
Forgive my intrusion, but as one of those crazy WoFers (it's OK, we don't mind the abbreviation ;)), I have to wonder what would make the "Charismatic" forum any different than the main SF/PC forum if WoF people were permitted to debate here? I mean, EVERYONE is permitted to POST everywhere as it is.

In any event, calling the forum simply "Charismatic" is not accurate, nor representative of the purpose of this subforum, and would likely result in having the same problems in SF/PC that you are trying to avoid. I am very much a Charismatic, as are all WoF people. You think you have problems now, call yourself the "Charismatic" subforum and then try to tell my WoF brothers and sisters that they're not permitted to debate here, even though they are all very much Charismatic themselves.

I for one am a big proponent of having a place where like-minded fellowship can occur. It is glaringly obvious to me that I don't believe like many of you. So, just like I don't go to the Baptist church on the corner on Sunday morning, likewise I don't come in here and post. I can still see y'all in the main forum, and when I get a hankerin' for some like-minded fellowship myself, I mosey on over to the WoF forum.

That is what these subforums are designed for. Like-minded fellowship That way, people can choose for themselves if they want the safe haven of like-minded fellowship, or if they're more like me and learn more from debate.

I don't find your forum name offensive at all. In fact, I suggested it. It is NON-WoF, and it describes the forum perfectly. It creates a place that is the polar opposite of the WoF forum, so there is no confusion whatsoever as to who may or may not post in each of them. If you debate in one, then you can not debate in the other.

Anyway, just my $0.02. Carry on.

[geetrue]

I don't find your forum name offensive at all. In fact, I suggested it. It is NON-WoF, and it describes the forum perfectly. It creates a place that is the polar opposite of the WoF forum, so there is no confusion whatsoever as to who may or may not post in each of them. If you debate in one, then you can not debate in the other.


That's why I suggested a sticky for Word of Faith people to cut and paste anything they don't agree with in our sub forum to the sticky. That in turn leaves the threads free of flame posting.

Where can we debate? I can't go over to the Word of Faith sub forum and say, "Hey man I tried it and my faith didn't produce the prosperity their faith does" "I pray for people and they die" "I ask the Lord to heal and they get worse".

I can't very well be a Word of Faith person now can I, but yet there is so much to agree with like Ken Copeland says, "Don't say oh it's the flu season I guess were all going to come down with something"

I agree with being positive and not negative, but this seperation of forums is leaving us like Texas and Oklahoma, like north and south korea or something.

We gotta talk, we gotta work things out, we need a better way to reach out to each other. We already agree that both groups are saved ... it's what we do on the way to heaven that is making us different.

I say call it "Charismatic" with a positive note that we welcome all believers with Jesus in their heart ...

Nothing wrong with Pentecostal and Word of Faith being charismatic too ... it's just a way of saying that they aren't the only ones that are charismatic.

Saying non-WOF is starting to get to me too. it's time for a change. You know who's looking down on this little disagreement?

He's bigger than we are ... His name is Jesus. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/yes.gif

[probinson]

That's why I suggested a sticky for Word of Faith people to cut and paste anything they don't agree with in our sub forum to the sticky. That in turn leaves the threads free of flame posting.
This could be INCREDIBLY time consuming for the staff. Not only that, but a sticky that takes random posts from all WoF posters from multiple threads on a myriad of topics and places them in a single sticky thread will make absolutely no sense to read.

Where can we debate? I can't go over to the Word of Faith sub forum and say, "Hey man I tried it and my faith didn't produce the prosperity their faith does" "I pray for people and they die" "I ask the Lord to heal and they get worse".

I can't very well be a Word of Faith person now can I, but yet there is so much to agree with like Ken Copeland says, "Don't say oh it's the flu season I guess were all going to come down with something"

I agree with being positive and not negative, but this seperation of forums is leaving us like Texas and Oklahoma, like north and south korea or something.
Not at all. If we don't like the subforums, we don't have to post there. Choose to live in SF/PC if the subforums don't do it for you. That is where debate is welcome and encouraged. But speaking as a man who hears complaints from all sides, there have been equal number of WoF posters and non-WoF posters alike who want to be able to have like-minded fellowship free from intrusion of those who don't believe like them. That was the purpose of this subforum.

We gotta talk, we gotta work things out, we need a better way to reach out to each other. We already agree that both groups are saved ... it's what we do on the way to heaven that is making us different.
I absolutely agree. Let's you and I and whoever else wants to join in do this in the main forum.

I say call it "Charismatic" with a positive note that we welcome all believers with Jesus in their heart ...

Nothing wrong with Pentecostal and Word of Faith being charismatic too ... it's just a way of saying that they aren't the only ones that are charismatic.

Which is precisely what we already have in the SF/PC main forum. What I'm trying to say to you is what you're proposing already exists in the main SF/PC forum. It is not exclusive to Pentecostals, nor Word of Faith people, and by opening this sub forum up in the same manner, we have essentially duplicated what currently exists, thereby defeating the purpose of creating this sub forum in the first place.

Saying non-WOF is starting to get to me too. it's time for a change. You know who's looking down on this little disagreement?

He's bigger than we are ... His name is Jesus. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/smilies/yes.gif
But see, the thing is I don't love any of you any less or think you're any less saved because we don't agree on some things doctrinally. And I'm here to tell you that we will NEVER agree with each other on everything doctrinally this side of heaven.

I appreciate and admire your desire for unity. But the bottom line is, some people are just looking for a place where they can fellowship with like-minded believers. That is why this and the other 2 subforums exist. It gives us a choice. We can post in the main forum and debate with one another, which is my preferred style of learning. I learn a lot through the debates we have on SF/PC. Some people, however, don't enjoy it at all. Those people would prefer to speak with those of like-minded belief for whatever reason, and I have no problem with that either.

That's what's nice about the current structure. It gives our members a choice of how they want to fellowship, and even gives them the freedom to fellowship with like-minded believers one day, and join into debate the next.

My $0.02. I'm up to $0.04 now.. :D

[JAS4Yeshua]

Pete, I really appreciate you speaking up in this discussion, as you're one of the ones who helped get this subforum launched. Thank you so much for all the work you've done to help us get our own safe place. :)

I agree, just Charismatic wouldn't work, for all the reasons you stated. I did like the idea of Charismatic - Other with the description beneath it explaining that we're the "rest of the Charismatics" (or something to that effect). That would help reduce the "insult factor" that some are experiencing, as well as keep us united n our beliefs.

[Tamara224]

I don't know what it is exactly... but I don't really like "Charismatic-Other"...

It's like saying "Oh yeah, those are the other Charismatics."

Like that uncle no one talks about... the other uncle.;)

[he4rty]

Just going through the old thesaurus to get some Inspiration

Independent Charismatics

Charismatic Assortment

Charismatic Mélange

[jeolmstead]

I really think we need to leave the name the way it is. I do not wish to offend, but "non-WOF" is no more offensive then "WOF" It is the best one line description we could have.

John O.

[Redheadedstepchild]

I think Independant Charismatic is OK. (Or, Charismatic - Independant)

[synger]

Hmm.. Charismatic- independent may be workable. By and large we are the Charismatics who are not identified with a specific charismatic denomination (like Pentecostal or WoF are).

Maybe Charismatic - Nonaffiliated?

Personally I don't have a problem with Charismatic-Other because from a taxonomy (listing) point of view, you would see it over against the other options, so you'd know it meant "and all the rest"


Pentecostal
Word of Faith
Charismatic - Other
See how you read those as a list, and you automatically know that the Charismatics in the third group are those Charismatics that don't identify wiht the first or second groups.

Ideally, to be crystal clear, we should have something like:


Charismatic: Pentecostal
Charismatic: Word of Faith
Charismatic: Other
But that would not only be redundant (since the forum above is already labeled with Charismatic), but it would entail changing two other forums. We have enough trouble with our forum name.

So with taxonomy usage, I think Charismatic - Other works well.

[SirTimothy]

Hmm.. Charismatic- independent may be workable. By and large we are the Charismatics who are not identified with a specific charismatic denomination (like Pentecostal or WoF are).

Maybe Charismatic - Nonaffiliated?

Personally I don't have a problem with Charismatic-Other because from a taxonomy (listing) point of view, you would see it over against the other options, so you'd know it meant "and all the rest"


Pentecostal
Word of Faith
Charismatic - Other
See how you read those as a list, and you automatically know that the Charismatics in the third group are those Charismatics that don't identify wiht the first or second groups.

Ideally, to be crystal clear, we should have something like:


Charismatic: Pentecostal
Charismatic: Word of Faith
Charismatic: Other
But that would not only be redundant (since the forum above is already labeled with Charismatic), but it would entail changing two other forums. We have enough trouble with our forum name.

So with taxonomy usage, I think Charismatic - Other works well.
You forgot. Pentecostals aren't Charismatic. Go wikipedia and find out about the differences. Quite significant.

[Tamara224]

You forgot. Pentecostals aren't Charismatic. Go wikipedia and find out about the differences. Quite significant.

While I agree with this, there is a certain amount of "broadness" to the definition which causes confusion.

I think a lot of people think that Charismatic is just another word for Pentecostal, or that the two are interchangeable.

Whereas, as we see here, a lot of people think that Charismatic is the broader term and Pentecostal is a label under the Charismatic umbrella.

I think that's where a lot of the confusion comes from... People use the terms in a lot of different ways.

[geetrue]

Happy Birthday Synger ... Forty three was a breeze for me ... have a great year too.

Charismatic others makes us sound, well you know sound strange.
That could even include that funny caveman in the GEICO comercials.

Charismatic Independant sounds like a polictcal party

Independant Charismatic sounds like were starting a country.

"Charismatic" is just a title to introduce you to how nice we are ... uh, aren't we nice.

Charismatic Nice guys :D

Charismatic Apostle's :D

Charismatic Thinkers :D

Charismatic Fisherman & women :D

Charismatic non-pentecostal and the WOF people won't let us post in their sub forum :D

I like just plain "Charismatic"

Let; "check us out and see" be their first thought.

[TasManOfGod]

If you call yourself just "Charismatic" and then stop people from posting what Charismatics believe you would be heading for endless unwanted conflict

[robbymac]

The forum name should stay the same. It's not exactly "catchy", but it's functional, and avoids a lot of "Report" buttons being pushed. The Wiki is pretty clear, but the title helps.

Let's just move on with the sub-forum instead of bogging down on the name.

[SirTimothy]

If you call yourself just "Charismatic" and then stop people from posting what Charismatics believe you would be heading for endless unwanted conflict
Well, we could try 'Sound Charismatics' or 'Charismatics in line with Scripture'...

Tim

[Sabertooth]

How about "Jesus-Movement Charismatic?"

That movement was at the root of Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Agape Force, Potter's House and similar.

Does the label "Charismatic-Empowered Evangelicals" include WOF?

Or how about just shortening it to "Charismatic Evangelicals?"

Also, I have met some in this camp who subscribe to some WOF ideas*, but their emphasis was evangelism, as opposed to prosperity. Would such an emphasis be a more telling difference, rather than strictly theology?

*Such as claiming provision for a specific evangelical campaign, as opposed to the emphasis on growth of personal wealth.

[jeolmstead]

The forum name should stay the same. It's not exactly "catchy", but it's functional, and avoids a lot of "Report" buttons being pushed. The Wiki is pretty clear, but the title helps.

Let's just move on with the sub-forum instead of bogging down on the name.
I agree with Robby.....

John O.

[Tamara224]

The forum name should stay the same. It's not exactly "catchy", but it's functional, and avoids a lot of "Report" buttons being pushed. The Wiki is pretty clear, but the title helps.

Let's just move on with the sub-forum instead of bogging down on the name.

I agree with Robby.....

John O.


Okay. I flipped... Now I'm flopping back.

We should keep the name the way it is.

Recent events in the main SF forum have made me see the importance of not letting contentious people dictate to and manipulate us.

[Aymn27]

How about "Jesus-Movement Charismatic?"

That movement was at the root of Calvary Chapel, Vineyard, Agape Force, Potter's House and similar.

Does the label "Charismatic-Empowered Evangelicals" include WOF?

Or how about just shortening it to "Charismatic Evangelicals?"

Also, I have met some in this camp who subscribe to some WOF ideas*, but their emphasis was evangelism, as opposed to prosperity. Would such an emphasis be a more telling difference, rather than strictly theology?

*Such as claiming provision for a specific evangelical campaign, as opposed to the emphasis on growth of personal wealth.
How about "Empowered Evangelicals" - like the book about the Vineyard movement??

[Aymn27]

How about "Empowered Evangelicals" - like the book about the Vineyard movement??
Empowered Evangelicals and Catholics
Spirit-filled Evangelicals and Catholics

[Wigglesworth]

Pentecostals aren't Charismatic.

Why?

[jeolmstead]

Why?
Most Charismatics came from non Pentecostal mainline evangelical denominations. They were not welcome in Pentecostal churches (for the most part) because they would not adopt the holiness standards found there (i.e. how you dress, how you talk, the movies you watch, how you cut your hair etc…)

Nor, were they welcome in there old denominations because they believed and practiced the manifestation gifts of the Spirit.

Charismatic groups and churches sprang up because the Charismatics had no place else to go.

Today’s Pentecostals tend to be much less legalistic then they were 30 years ago. So, in many circles there is not a marked difference (at least in practice) between the two groups.

Each of the two groups will have WOF and non-WOF believers.


John O.

[synger]

Well, looks like we can't come up with another name that doesn't have similiar problems to the one we already have. No one else has made any constructive suggestions, either. (that is, the people who don't like our name the way it is).

Might as well stick with what we have.

[geetrue]

Well, looks like we can't come up with another name that doesn't have similiar problems to the one we already have. No one else has made any constructive suggestions, either. (that is, the people who don't like our name the way it is).

Might as well stick with what we have.

Haven't seen you in awhile synger ... you must have had a wild birthday party. lol

Happy birthday and yes the name is starting to be understood ... We miswell keep it. I hate to give in, but then again I hate change too.

[lismore]

They were not welcome in Pentecostal churches (for the most part) because they would not adopt the holiness standards found there (i.e. how you dress, how you talk, the movies you watch, how you cut your hair etc…)
.

Hello:wave:

I would disagree but not sure Im allowed to.

Can I ask question to the folks here, not meaning to cause offence but why is your forum called:

Charismatic-Non word of faith?

It could come across that you have a grudge against word of faith, or is there a sub section somewhere for charismatic WOFS or WOF charismatics?

:scratch:

[lismore]

Well, looks like we can't come up with another name that doesn't have similiar problems to the one we already have. No one else has made any constructive suggestions, either. (that is, the people who don't like our name the way it is).

Might as well stick with what we have.

What about 'charismatic'.

[Sabertooth]

What about 'charismatic'.

Because, in the USA, when someone says "charismatic," they are referring to a WOF'er, someone like a Vineyardite or someone from an older denomination whose church embraces the gifts & baptism of the Holy Spirit.

The former have identified themselves as the "Word of Faith" movement. The latter remains identified with their original denomination. Those in the middle have more-or-less become the "else" group.

How about "Charismatic-NOS?" [Not Otherwise Specified] :D

[Tamara224]

Hello:wave:

I would disagree but not sure Im allowed to.

Can I ask question to the folks here, not meaning to cause offence but why is your forum called:

Charismatic-Non word of faith?

It could come across that you have a grudge against word of faith, or is there a sub section somewhere for charismatic WOFS or WOF charismatics?

:scratch:


Lis, how long have you been around here and you don't know that WoF has it's own subforum?

WoF are charismatic so to say "WoF - Charismatic" would simply be superfluous.

And, really, I find it very hard to believe that you missed all of our discussions on the name here... Just read this thread and you will see our responses to it.:wave:

It is not a slam against WoF. In fact, probinson is the one who came up with that name. It identifies the people who are posting here (the people this subforum is for). Which are Charismatic but not WoF = Charismatic - Non-WoF. It's not an insult. It's just a label for ease of identification.

[lismore]

Lis, how long have you been around here and you don't know that WoF has it's own subforum?


Hi there:wave:

Yes I do know that.

It seems to me though that such a rigid distinction between the two might be counter productive. There are some WOF people who are charismatic also and also other WOFS who are pentecostal! But the pentecostal sub forum does not have non-wof in its title.

:wave:

[lismore]

Because, in the USA, when someone says "charismatic," they are referring to a WOF'er, someone like a Vineyardite or someone from an older denomination whose church embraces the gifts & baptism of the Holy Spirit.


Some people do see embracing the gifts as being charismatic though?

:scratch:

[JAS4Yeshua]

Hi there:wave:

Yes I do know that.

It seems to me though that such a rigid distinction between the two might be counter productive. There are some WOF people who are charismatic also and also other WOFS who are pentecostal! But the pentecostal sub forum does not have non-wof in its title.

:wave:
That's because pentecostal is an easily identifiable name, just as Word of Faith is. Problem is, as has been stated previously in this thread (and others), is that there is no name to describe the rest of the Charismatics.

[jeolmstead]

Hello:wave:

I would disagree but not sure Im allowed to.

Can I ask question to the folks here, not meaning to cause offence but why is your forum called:

Charismatic-Non word of faith?

It could come across that you have a grudge against word of faith, or is there a sub section somewhere for charismatic WOFS or WOF charismatics?

:scratch:
I’m not sure which part of what you quoted me saying you disagree with. So I don’t really know how to answer you.

As to what we believe in regards to WOF teaching you are certainly welcome to read what has already been posted here on the subject. I think it is pretty clear

John O.

[lismore]

Most Charismatics came from non Pentecostal mainline evangelical denominations. They were not welcome in Pentecostal churches (for the most part) because they would not adopt the holiness standards found there (i.e. how you dress, how you talk, the movies you watch, how you cut your hair etc…)


Hello There:wave:

This was the paragraph I was disagreeing with. perhaps we could discuss in the main forum sometime, but maybe its just a different experience!

God Bless You:wave:

[Sabertooth]

I don't know what the statistics look like, but, if applicable, how about "Mainstream Charismatic" or "Charismatic- Mainstream?"

[JAS4Yeshua]

I'm going to be a broken record again.

I would like to see us consider changing the name of this forum. We've been discusing it and debating it. I'd like to go through this list, get all the names, and do a multiple choice poll to try to find the names that people like the best. When we get one, we should put it to a vote.

There are some of us that don't wish to offend our brothers and sisters. There are others that are uncertain of it. There are still others who don't care. I think we have enough of an established membership for the sub-forum now, that we can get a vote from this forum's membership only.

What say you?

[Sabertooth]

... I think we have enough of an established membership for the sub-forum now, that we can get a vote from this forum's membership only.

What say you?

Am I considered to be a member by posting or is some other action required?

[JAS4Yeshua]

As far as I'm concerned, you're a member. You have been posting here, as a member. I can't speak for the others, but I don't anticipate a problem. ;)

[Simon Peter]

I'm going to be a broken record again.

I would like to see us consider changing the name of this forum. We've been discusing it and debating it. I'd like to go through this list, get all the names, and do a multiple choice poll to try to find the names that people like the best. When we get one, we should put it to a vote.

There are some of us that don't wish to offend our brothers and sisters. There are others that are uncertain of it. There are still others who don't care. I think we have enough of an established membership for the sub-forum now, that we can get a vote from this forum's membership only.

What say you?

Jason, I can't believe we're still discussing this!

Didn't the last majority consensus count?
Or is it because the result wasn't what you wanted, so we have to revisit this yet again until you get the name changed?

As for offending people, I will be offended if you change the name. Or are you only concerned about offending WoF members?

Please see my posts #17 and #40.

Thanks.
Simon

[Redheadedstepchild]

It seems to me that this is one of those issues where someone will be dissatified no matter what you do. I think you need to settle on a name, whatever it is, and move on. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Simon Peter.

There has been no majority consensus yet, as people have still been bringing forth names as suggestions. All that has been decided is that we haven't found another one yet. That is why I suggested putting all the suggestions together and deciding, from the suggestions that many have brought forward, including the current title, and putting them to a vote.

So far, it has been you and one or two others against changing it, I and one or two others have been for changing it, others have been in between waiting to find the right name. So, from reading this thread, it appears that the issue is still very undecided.

Will everyone be happy? Never. But if the only reason it will cause unhappiness is because it takes away the non-Word of Faith, then I would strongly encourage us to check our motives that they aren't motivated by hate. We are not to hate our brothers and sisters in the Lord, not even ones we disagree with. If the concern is that we're afraid of "them" coming in here, then, again, we shouldn't worry about it, because our rules specifically state what and who can debate and teach here in this forum.

I am against prejudice and even the appearance of prejudice. That is totally contrary to the will of Christ. I want to make sure that we avoid all appearance of evil, and conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ. Will that apply to everyone? It isn't my place to say. That is between the individual and the Holy Spirit.

Why are you so set against having the members vote on the suggestions that they put forth in this thread? You weren't the only person to want this forum, so it would be incorrect to assume that this is YOUR forum, any more than it would be correct for me to assume that this is MY forum. This forum is for the all the members who agree with the rules and statements set forth for the subforum and have chosen to post here, and we all deserve a say in it, wouldn't you agree?

[he4rty]

How about Carry on Charismatics:D

One for us Brits I feel.

[probinson]

If I may make a suggestion, since I have no personal interest in what happens here....

There still seems to be some contention on whether a name change is even desired. So what I would suggest is creating a simple poll with only 2 options; "Change the name to something else", or "Keep the name". That way, you'll settle, once and for all, whether the membership even wants to change the name at all.

If that poll result is for some name change, then compile a list of names and vote on it.

So first, a poll to see if a name change is desired, and then if necessary, a second poll for the new name. That way, the desires of a consensus of the membership would be implemented.

Just a suggestion...

[JAS4Yeshua]

Good suggestion, what I was thinking was a poll of all the options, including the current name. Those who didn't wish to change the name could vote for the current name, those who did wish to change it could vote for the new name. Although, thinking about it, Pete's idea would probably be the better option.

[probinson]

...Pete's idea would probably be the better option...
The sooner you all learn this immutable truth, the better off we'll all be...

:D

That Pete! He's such a humble guy! :holy:

[Tamara224]

If I may make a suggestion, since I have no personal interest in what happens here....

There still seems to be some contention on whether a name change is even desired. So what I would suggest is creating a simple poll with only 2 options; "Change the name to something else", or "Keep the name". That way, you'll settle, once and for all, whether the membership even wants to change the name at all.

If that poll result is for some name change, then compile a list of names and vote on it.

So first, a poll to see if a name change is desired, and then if necessary, a second poll for the new name. That way, the desires of a consensus of the membership would be implemented.

Just a suggestion...

:thumbsup:


I have now started a poll on this topic.

[Simon Peter]

Simon Peter.

There has been no majority consensus yet, as people have still been bringing forth names as suggestions. ?

Yes, people are making suggestions, but that doesn't change the fact that back in July there was a consensus to leave the name alone for some months. Go back and read the posts again. Here we are 6-7 weeks later...


Will everyone be happy? Never. But if the only reason you are going to be unhappy is because it takes away the non-Word of Faith, then I would strongly urge you to check your motives that they aren't motivated by hate...I am against prejudice...

Wow, what are you accusing me of here Jason? I don't appreciate your suggestions that I am predjudice, or motivated by hate. If you have any evidence to back up this serious charge please present it. If not, please retract your remarks as they are defamatory.


Why are you so set against having the members vote on the suggestions that they put forth in this thread? Why are you so afraid of what might happen.

I refer you again to my post #17. I am all for democracy, but I believe it is you who have not been respecting the process. You were trying to change the name (and therefore the focus) of this forum before it was even 24 hours old!


You weren't the only person to want this forum, so it would be incorrect to assume that this is YOUR forum...

When you say "want this forum", what forum are you talking about? Are you talking about this "Non-WoF" forum? In which case you are right, I and some others did want this forum. Or are you talking about some 'Charismatic Other' forum? In which case you'd be wrong, I did not want a 'Charismatic Other' forum.

As for the apparant attempt to make it seem like I feel this is MY forum. I don't appreciate that.

[ANM29]

Leave it. :)

[JAS4Yeshua]

Simon Peter, I never accused you of anything. Please reread my post, and you'll see that. I asked you questions, "if" it was a certain way, "then" you should evaluate it. I never once said you were prejudiced or accused you of being prejudiced.

The prejudice statement was a completely separate paragraph. I stated I was against it, and against the appearance of it. I have stated before that the forum name appears prejudiced, and you know that, so you know what I was referring to. By combining the two paragraphs and removing everything in between, you made your quote say something I wasn't saying at all.

I started the thread for the new forum based on previous discussion. When I started it, I wasn't aware of the previous discussion you had. A few others came in, agreeing with the discussion, then you came in apparently demanding that you "wanted this forum" and didn't want to change it.

Then there was the backlash that came from the name. The offense that some members had as a result of the name. Some were more vocal and disruptive than others. In addition, there were those who were confused by the name. It seemed like we were always having to explain and defend the name.

I brought it up periodically because we are not to intentionally cause offense to our brothers and sisters in the Lord. The offense was unintentional to start with, but when we became aware of it, we should have started to deal with it. Why? Because we are Christians. Because we need to show the love of Christ in our dealings.

1 John 4:7-13 (NIV)
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. 13 We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

And before you go trying to point back at me, let me tell you that I am not writing this, or even my previous post, in any sort of accusatory fashion. I am firm in what I believe, and direct in telling you what I see, but I leave it to you and the Holy Spirit to show you if there is anything truly in your heart. This is written in love. I'm just stating my mind, and how I believe God would want us to handle the situation.

[Heartland]

I want to offer an unsolicited perspective...LOL This morning I spent some time reading the forum rules for here and for the WoF forum. It seems to me the one difference that comes up the most is knowing, or not knowing, the will of God. If you guys do end up changing the name, why not add "Charismatic - Will of God" or "Charismatic - God's Will" to your list of choices for a new forum name?

[JAS4Yeshua]

I like those two suggestions. :)

[didaskalos]

Leave it. :)
I agree.
Leave it as it is. It is accurate and to the point.

[ANM29]

Exactly.

That is what we are, Charismatic-Non-WOF.

I didn't realize all of this would even be such a big deal.

If they can call themselves by the name they choose, why can't we? Crazy stuff..

[JAS4Yeshua]

The thread has been cleaned of the flaming post and responses to it. If you have any questions regarding it, please feel free to PM me.

Carry on.

[ANM29]

I can't believe we are having all this drama over a name.

What other way can we desribe ourselves, except "Non WOF"? This is sooo insane. I guess this clears us any misconceptions about certain people.

[jeolmstead]

Having been around a couple of years, I really do not think the issue is with the name as much as it is with what we (as a sub group) believe.

There are some people in the other camp who have no problem with our name and have indorsed it. There are others who seem to find fault with us no matter what we do.

I do not think that this is a WOF vs Non-WOF issue as much as it is a couple of people who have attacked this group everywhere they can for what ever reason they can come up with since I’ve been a part of CF. These people will continue to do so no matter what we call ourselves.

There are also people whose doctrinal position matches mine who rarely come in the sub forum. They spend their time antagonizing people in the main forum. Again, it’s not about doctrine it’s about a good fight. (I’m guilty of this myself) I think it’s human nature.

John O.

[JAS4Yeshua]

Since the vote has now clearly indicated that the forum name will not change, I will not address this issue again for 6 to 12 months. Currently, the SF/PC Forum is discussing how long to keep the main forum rules "as is" before a new team is chosen to "revisit" those rules. It will not be before that time has elapsed, in fairness to everyone here.