Establishing Guidelines

[Willtor]

It was suggested in another thread that we "Moderates" establish what it is that we are calling Christianity and how we mean that in this subforum. This, to my mind, is actually quite an undertaking since most of us have some general notion of what a Moderate is, and it is quite likely that many of us don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

In light of this, I'd suggest a system that is more descriptive than prescriptive or proscriptive; and even then, something fairly minimal. That is, most of us probably feel very strongly about some of the things we think and it makes sense to identify some of the core points and point to them as things with which we would like to be identified. But it should not be treated as a metric for Christianity.

For example, I am quite persuaded that God is Triune and I would identify that as something necessary for one to accept in order to be a follower of Christ (if they are able to grasp it). Even so, if the doctrine makes it into our self-description I would do everything I could to welcome those who think otherwise and not treat them as lesser Christians. Although I think it is an absolutely necessary doctrine I am also not the Judge (probably a good thing). But by putting such a thing into our statement, it provides a framework for discussing it (and debating it in the appropriate sub-forum).

Essentially, I'd hope for something that is a minimal-but-adequate description that doesn't act to exclude those who disagree. As a first suggestion, I'd put up the Apostle's Creed.

Thoughts?

[chaoschristian]

I concur with Higgs2 that a statement of faith is the wrong direction to take. Such statements are by definition self-reducing, especially in the context of an ecumenical forum such as this.

I aslo concur with Willtor that a descriptive approach is the best. This seems to have worked well for WWMC. Again, prescriptive/proscriptive approaches tend to be self-reducing and would, I think, quickly lead to division within the forum. I think that's something we all want to avoid.

I recommend simply that members (if we are to have a membership list, please maybe we can forgo that) are those that self-idenity as moderate Christians and focus the rules on behaviour rather than belief.

[Izdaari]

I agree. Let's the keep the definition of a moderate Christian minimal, and mostly leave it to self-identification. We can afford to do that because we have no mission to keep the 'infidels' outside the gates.

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I don't think a membership list would be helpful at all myself.

[Willtor]

Yeah, I'd like to forgo the membership list, too. That's a recipe for club mentality.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

Really? Do you think so? :( It seems to cause issues with the other forums...the word "exclusive" comes up alot in response.

[Willtor]

I agree. Let's the keep the definition of a moderate Christian minimal, and mostly leave it to self-identification. We can afford to do that because we have no mission to keep the 'infidels' outside the gates.

But I'm afraid we do have to have a membership list. We don't want just random people from all over the site voting on our rules and our mods.

Could we make the membership list more of a representative list? That is, a group of people elected to tackle various issues?

[Izdaari]

Really? Do you think so? :( It seems to cause issues with the other forums...the word "exclusive" comes up alot in response.
It causes issues in CC (where I'm a member), but it doesn't in WWMC (where I used to be, but had to quit because of a CC rule that you couldn't also be in WWMC). Why in one place and not the other? I think it has to do with the purpose of it: In CC there's a mission to keep the 'infidels' out. The membership list is there to make sure the membership is truly conservative. In WWMC all they're trying to accomplish is to keep random people from all over the site voting on their mods and rules. From that very limited intent, issues seldom arise. I'm proposing we follow the WWMC example on that.

[Izdaari]

Could we make the membership list more of a representative list? That is, a group of people elected to tackle various issues?
Maybe that could work.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I concur with Higgs2 that a statement of faith is the wrong direction to take. Such statements are by definition self-reducing, especially in the context of an ecumenical forum such as this.

I aslo concur with Willtor that a descriptive approach is the best. This seems to have worked well for WWMC. Again, prescriptive/proscriptive approaches tend to be self-reducing and would, I think, quickly lead to division within the forum. I think that's something we all want to avoid.

I recommend simply that members (if we are to have a membership list, please maybe we can forgo that) are those that self-idenity as moderate Christians and focus the rules on behaviour rather than belief.

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

[chaoschristian]

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

Emphasis mine.

I have to check, but I think the congregational forum wiki takes cares of this for us.

[chaoschristian]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.

[Willtor]

I agree to a point. I do think it's important for us to establish the basic beliefs of a Christian...the Nicean Creed would work well enough for this. Name the things that we come together in agreement with as a foundation at the least.

I'd very much like to, too. But I can see ChaosChristian's point about not doing one at all. And I'd go with it either way. I certainly think that self-identification is an important part of _being_ a Moderate Christian. Besides, I don't think anybody is going to see "Moderate Christians" and immediately conclude "Marcionites" (though, for all I know there may be one or two here).

However, much as I'm turned off by the idea of some comprehensive checklist of doctrines used as a litmus test, I do think that community identification (not just self-identification) is valuable. I say this partially in seeing it from another angle: those who do not self-identify as "Moderate Christians."

Suppose, for example, that there was a "Moderate Muslim" forum of people who did not fit well into Sunni-ism, Sufi-ism, Shi'i-ism, or Wahabi-ism. They might self-identify as "Moderate Muslims" but I (as an outsider) would like to get a general sense as to what is meant by "Muslim" in the greater sense, even if some self-identifying individuals disagree. Of course I'd expect to speak to an individual to get some idea of what he or she thought even if he or she happened to disagree with some points in the general outline.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.
I agree. :)

[Willtor]

I don't like the idea of a membership list, but if the consensus of the forum it so have one, I would like it restricted to voting purposes only.

Agreed. And, again, I'd push for the possibility that it be restricted to particular regulars in the forum and _not_ include other regulars in the forum so that it never becomes a matter of elitism.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Emphasis mine.

I have to check, but I think the congregational forum wiki takes cares of this for us.
If thats the case then I guess we're covered.

[chaoschristian]

Agreed. And, again, I'd push for the possibility that it be restricted to particular regulars in the forum and _not_ include other regulars in the forum so that it never becomes a matter of elitism.

Will, can you say that again please? I'm not following.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Can we not do the wiki? :( Seriously...it only brings division.

What seemed to work the best in the CC forum is making a discussion thread. Then after some kind of consensus is made about the issues a poll is put up to vote for or against the proposal. This process will save us from wiki wars.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

It causes issues in CC (where I'm a member), but it doesn't in WWMC (where I used to be, but had to quit because of a CC rule that you couldn't also be in WWMC). Why in one place and not the other? I think it has to do with the purpose of it: In CC there's a mission to keep the 'infidels' out. The membership list is there to make sure the membership is truly conservative. In WWMC all they're trying to accomplish is to keep random people from all over the site voting on their mods and rules. From that very limited intent, issues seldom arise. I'm proposing we follow the WWMC example on that.
Sorry Iz...missed your post here. :doh:

I guess if we have to for voting reasons it will be ok.

[Criada]

Membership for voting sounds OK - as long as there aren't too many rules, please!

Love God, love each other
Doesn't that cover it?

[higgs2]

Let's just go with self-identification of "Moderate Christian". I don't want to have a creed or confessional statement that people have to agree to. I'd rather get on with the fellowship and discussion.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Let's just go with self-identification of "Moderate Christian". I don't want to have a creed or confessional statement that people have to agree to. I'd rather get on with the fellowship and discussion.
:thumbsup:

[Willtor]

Will, can you say that again please? I'm not following.

Yeah. Basically, I'm suggesting that the membership list not be a list of members at all, but a list of representatives who vote on things. That way, the representatives are seen as responsible to the regulars in the forum who self-identify as "Moderate Christians" and there's no sense of elitism regarding who is on the list vs. who isn't.

[Willtor]

Let's just go with self-identification of "Moderate Christian". I don't want to have a creed or confessional statement that people have to agree to. I'd rather get on with the fellowship and discussion.

For myself, I'm not suggesting that anybody would have to agree to anything to self-identify as a "Moderate Christian." But something that gives somebody else a general sense (even if it isn't perfect for everybody; even if it isn't perfect for me) seems like a good way for people to find a starting point for discussion, and perhaps may encourage others to consider self-identifying as Moderate.

[Willtor]

Here's a thought!

Why don't we come up with some of the most general boundaries of what we consider as defining "Moderate Christianity" and once we have a big list, we can all vote for or against each of them and publish the results of the vote, saying something like:

8% of self-identifying Moderates polled indicated support for Nestorianism.

We say "self-identifying Moderates" because that's what the forum is about, and we say "polled" to make it clear that this subject to the same biases as any unscientific poll.

Would that be a reasonable compromise for all concerned?

[Freedom&Light]

I'm just not sure it's needed, though.

If we make the site-wide rules paramount, and only add a couple of things:

1. Those who self-identify as a moderate Christian are members of this forum.

2. Discussion is welcomed, debate is not. Discussion allows for different points of view to be brought to the table without condemnation and judgement. Debate, by its nature of having a winner and a loser, is not fitting with the spirit of this forum.

3. Only members who have added their names to the membership list may vote in mod and policy elections.


I think that should be it, personally.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I'm just not sure it's needed, though.

If we make the site-wide rules paramount, and only add a couple of things:

1. Those who self-identify as a moderate Christian are members of this forum.

2. Discussion is welcomed, debate is not. Discussion allows for different points of view to be brought to the table without condemnation and judgement. Debate, by its nature of having a winner and a loser, is not fitting with the spirit of this forum.

3. Only members who have added their names to the membership list may vote in mod and policy elections.


I think that should be it, personally.
I like that...:thumbsup: Keeps it simple!

[Willtor]

How about a sticky thread that lists breakdowns of what people think?

[higgs2]

Here's a thought!

Why don't we come up with some of the most general boundaries of what we consider as defining "Moderate Christianity" and once we have a big list, we can all vote for or against each of them and publish the results of the vote, saying something like:

8% of self-identifying Moderates polled indicated support for Nestorianism.

We say "self-identifying Moderates" because that's what the forum is about, and we say "polled" to make it clear that this subject to the same biases as any unscientific poll.

Would that be a reasonable compromise for all concerned?


I thought I replied to this, I must not have hit "post". I think this would be really interesting, and we should do it for sure. It would help us get to know each other and help others understand who we are (and aren't).

[Freedom&Light]

Help me out more. :) I'm not averse to a sticky with it, but what would be in it?

Something like "Many of our members say they believe X, Y, and Z. Here's more info on that." Is that what you're thinking? I suppose it could really help visitors know what their getting into, but I wouldn't want it to keep people out.

[higgs2]

Help me out more. :) I'm not averse to a sticky with it, but what would be in it?

Something like "Many of our members say they believe X, Y, and Z. Here's more info on that." Is that what you're thinking? I suppose it could really help visitors know what their getting into, but I wouldn't want it to keep people out.

I guess it could be a sticky. I liked just saying the percentages, I think it would be really interesting. I don't want it to keep people out, either. Maybe it would have the opposite effect, though, because people could see that even if the majority believed "x,y,z", 15% believe "a,b,c", etc.

[Willtor]

Help me out more. :) I'm not averse to a sticky with it, but what would be in it?

Something like "Many of our members say they believe X, Y, and Z. Here's more info on that." Is that what you're thinking? I suppose it could really help visitors know what their getting into, but I wouldn't want it to keep people out.

Here's the idea:

We come up with a great big list of doctrines and we start a thread that lets people respond to them. We might set it up so that people can agree or disagree with the doctrine and then say whether they think that it is essential to the Christian faith. Once we have 20 or 30 people (or more if we can get that many) we either use a Sticky or the Wiki (no rhyme intended) to post the results.* One result for one particular doctrine might be:

Jesus is the eternal Word of God: 33 respondents
Yes: 90% (100% of those said it was essential to the faith)
No: 0%
Uncertain: 10%

* - As an aside, you suggest that we put links to things describing the particular doctrines. That sounds like a good idea to me.

[Freedom&Light]

Oh! Ok! I'm on board now. I think that's a great idea! I think I like it as a sticky better than a wiki, though, so that it wouldn't exclude people. It could be really interesting!

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

Wait though...wouldn't it be better to make a poll for it so that the results are more accurate? :scratch:

With only the people on the membership list able to vote.

[Criada]

Sounds as though it would need loads of polls, not just one...

[Freedom&Light]

Wait though...wouldn't it be better to make a poll for it so that the results are more accurate? :scratch:

With only the people on the membership list able to vote.

Polls on what we believe or a poll about making this a sticky/wiki? :scratch:

I would think the answer would be yes to both. :pink:

[chaoschristian]

Yeah. Basically, I'm suggesting that the membership list not be a list of members at all, but a list of representatives who vote on things. That way, the representatives are seen as responsible to the regulars in the forum who self-identify as "Moderate Christians" and there's no sense of elitism regarding who is on the list vs. who isn't.

OK, gotcha now. Thank you.

[Willtor]

Polls on what we believe or a poll about making this a sticky/wiki? :scratch:

I would think the answer would be yes to both. :pink:

I don't think the built-in polling system lets you ask that many questions or with that sort of specificity.

[longhair75]

I'm just not sure it's needed, though.

If we make the site-wide rules paramount, and only add a couple of things:

1. Those who self-identify as a moderate Christian are members of this forum.

2. Discussion is welcomed, debate is not. Discussion allows for different points of view to be brought to the table without condemnation and judgement. Debate, by its nature of having a winner and a loser, is not fitting with the spirit of this forum.

3. Only members who have added their names to the membership list may vote in mod and policy elections.


I think that should be it, personally.
I think my colleague Freedom&Light has it in a nutshell. The simpler the better.

[Freedom&Light]

What questions were you thinking about polling people on?

Is this going to be like my old statistics homework? :P

[Willtor]

What questions were you thinking about polling people on?

Is this going to be like my old statistics homework? :P

I was thinking there would be a preliminary thread where people would post doctrines that they considered important and then somebody (possibly myself) would gather them up into one big survey.

[Tenebrae]

Membership for voting sounds OK - as long as there aren't too many rules, please!

Love God, love each other
Doesn't that cover it?
I like this answer:thumbsup:

[Willtor]

I just opened up a thread for doctrines you'd like on the survey (http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=40209028).

[chaoschristian]

You know, I wonder how long we could go without having any FSR rules or doctrinal statements in place.

[Joykins]

Oh, a while I hope cc!

[Tenebrae]

Oh, a while I hope cc!
As long as we like

I suggest the rules for this forum

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart mine and soul

2. Love your neighbour as yourself

[Criada]

As long as we like

I suggest the rules for this forum

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart mine and soul

2. Love your neighbour as yourself
:amen:

[Tenebrae]

:amen:
Seriously, pretty much all our actions can be dictated by those two rules.

When I get grumpy and sarcastic to someone, am I loving them as I love myself dunno, I think its a human tendency to over analyse and over complicate things, however I think we need to get back to the basis IMO

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

As long as we like

I suggest the rules for this forum

1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart mine and soul

2. Love your neighbour as yourself
Sounds familiar. :) ;)

[edb19]

I think as long as we have Wiki ( :mad: ) - we have to have a membership.

The subforums are autonomous and we need to vote on rules - being able to vote implies membership.

We can, however, make our requirement for membership as loose as we want (it can be something as simple as accepting the Apostles' Creed and signing in).

edie

[Criada]

I think as long as we have Wiki ( :mad: ) - we have to have a membership.

The subforums are autonomous and we need to vote on rules - being able to vote implies membership.

We can, however, make our requirement for membership as loose as we want (it can be something as simple as accepting the Apostles' Creed and signing in).

edie
Sounds reasonable! :)

[Joykins]

I don't think we have to have a membership tbut if we don't define something for voting anyone on the forum could vote.

[chaoschristian]

I don't think we have to have a membership tbut if we don't define something for voting anyone on the forum could vote.

That's something I would hope we'd have the patience and forebearance to experiment with for a bit.

I know the membership lists are intended to 'protect' a congregational area from those who would come in an mess with the wiki or wreck a mod application, but is that a prophylatic against a non-existant threat?

Are there really that many people who prowl the forum committing such devious acts? And if it were happening, aren't there alternative ways of dealing with it?

I guess I've always been disappointed that WWMC created a membership list. Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe we do need one.

I'd like to see if we could function normally without one. It's easy to do, not so easy to undo.

[Criada]

That's something I would hope we'd have the patience and forebearance to experiment with for a bit.

I know the membership lists are intended to 'protect' a congregational area from those who would come in an mess with the wiki or wreck a mod application, but is that a prophylatic against a non-existant threat?

Are there really that many people who prowl the forum committing such devious acts? And if it were happening, aren't there alternative ways of dealing with it?

I guess I've always been disappointed that WWMC created a membership list. Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe we do need one.

I'd like to see if we could function normally without one. It's easy to do, not so easy to undo.
Well - it's probably easier to see how things go without one, then add it if neccessary, rather than trying to get rid of it once it's there...
How do folks feel about just leaving it for a while and seeing what happens?

[Athene]

That's something I would hope we'd have the patience and forebearance to experiment with for a bit.

I know the membership lists are intended to 'protect' a congregational area from those who would come in an mess with the wiki or wreck a mod application, but is that a prophylatic against a non-existant threat?

Are there really that many people who prowl the forum committing such devious acts? And if it were happening, aren't there alternative ways of dealing with it?

I guess I've always been disappointed that WWMC created a membership list. Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe we do need one.

I'd like to see if we could function normally without one. It's easy to do, not so easy to undo.

The WWMC membership list was created after the Rochir mod application debacle, but things are different now, mod applications are posted in the forum the person wishes to mod - so it's doubtful the same thing would happen again.

How about wait and see if there is a need before creating a membership list. If countless numbers of people who never post in the MC descend here to vote in our elections and the swoop back off into the night are then yes lets consider a membership list, I'd rather see how we manage without one first.

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

I guess I've always been disappointed that WWMC created a membership list. Maybe I'm too naive. Maybe we do need one.

I'd like to see if we could function normally without one. It's easy to do, not so easy to undo.

:thumbsup:

[Rochir]

Hullo, I think I'll hang out here to see if I can hang with some of my conservative brethren and friends!

:)

[Criada]

Hullo, I think I'll hang out here to see if I can hang with some of my conservative brethren and friends!

:)
Yay! :clap: :clap:

[Rochir]

Yay! :clap: :clap:

:hug:

[Rochir]

Will people posting here be prohibited from being a member in other congregational fora?

;)

[BelindaP]

We could do our membership list differently from the others. Perhaps we could have a thread where people post only one time and list the doctrines they are moderate about and (if they feel like it) the ones they are liberal or conservative about.

They could also post a little info so people could get to know them. They could self-edit at any time. That way it would be more like a directory. It could be made searchable if people put their usernames in the title for their post.

FWIW, people who hang with us could also post in the thread. No reason it would have to contain only moderates.

[higgs2]

The WWMC membership list was created after the Rochir mod application debacle, but things are different now, mod applications are posted in the forum the person wishes to mod - so it's doubtful the same thing would happen again.

How about wait and see if there is a need before creating a membership list. If countless numbers of people who never post in the MC descend here to vote in our elections and the swoop back off into the night are then yes lets consider a membership list, I'd rather see how we manage without one first.

soundsl like a sensible approach to me. :)

[Rochir]

The WWMC membership list was created after the Rochir mod application debacle, but things are different now, mod applications are posted in the forum the person wishes to mod - so it's doubtful the same thing would happen again.


Athene, I believe you are a bit blue-eyed here.

The WWMC, as well as any other roll call list, has been established to prevent peoplewho are not of the forum where a mod is being elected, are part of.

Yes, my initial moderator elect (done under false premises) was rigged by non-WWMC people voting against me en masse! The same would happen again for anyone being liberal, non-Christian, atheist etc if voting for moderator for a specific forum would again be left open to the entirery of FU membership!

:|

[edb19]

Well - it's probably easier to see how things go without one, then add it if neccessary, rather than trying to get rid of it once it's there...
How do folks feel about just leaving it for a while and seeing what happens?


I don't have a problem with that - but then how do we determine who votes for mods?:scratch:

My concern - someone applies to be a mod and maybe they've had disagreements with someone (or more than one someone) in another forum and those people "stuff the ballot box" with no votes. :sigh:

I'm really not trying to be negative - but sadly I think that could happen. It's only smart to be prepared ahead of time for that possibility.

edie

[BelindaP]

I could see that happening. I suppose we could put in a clause that membership elections are open, but if there is a serious outcry, an election would have to be recounted with only the votes of those on the list.

[Criada]

Will people posting here be prohibited from being a member in other congregational fora?

;)
NO!!!!!!


:)

[Willtor]

Frankly, I don't see a problem with a Hindu or a Pagan being a mod, here, so long as the forum is moderated fairly and with a gentle touch. If other people agree and there is some sense of declaration regarding it, I'd hope that anybody who was concerned about someone not being a true Christian would be turned off enough about the forum that they wouldn't bother skewing the polls.

[BelindaP]

I wish that were the case, but I've seen people really go after non-Christian mod applicants in areas other than the congregational areas. I can imagine it would only be worse here.

[JimfromOhio]

I still don't get the difference between moderate view and conservative view.

[Willtor]

For many people there is no difference. Except that for some, a perceived defensiveness within the CC forum was seen as, itself, a faulty practice and not at all a proper outgrowth of Christian doctrine.

[JimfromOhio]

With lack of guidelines, I don't know. I think I am taking a breather from Foru.ms and decide what to do later.

[BelindaP]

Well, pay us a visit when you stop back by. Maybe we will have a better idea what we're doing by then, too.

[Joykins]

Jim, your insights are always welcome here :)

[MrJim]

I think what he really needs is to recover from that Red Sox victory....

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

With lack of guidelines, I don't know. I think I am taking a breather from Foru.ms and decide what to do later.
:hug:

[higgs2]

So, is the membership list sticky just in case we do decide to have a list? because we haven't decided to, right?

[Izdaari]

For many people there is no difference. Except that for some, a perceived defensiveness within the CC forum was seen as, itself, a faulty practice and not at all a proper outgrowth of Christian doctrine.
That would be my take on it. CC has been rife with very aggressive defensiveness, and that's not how Christ-followers should be. We should be different from that, and indeed, if that's all the difference there is, that'll suit me well enough.

[chaoschristian]

So, is the membership list sticky just in case we do decide to have a list? because we haven't decided to, right?

I think FlagLady was simply providing us with tools. It's up to us to decide to use them or not.

[higgs2]

Frankly, I don't see a problem with a Hindu or a Pagan being a mod, here, so long as the forum is moderated fairly and with a gentle touch. If other people agree and there is some sense of declaration regarding it, I'd hope that anybody who was concerned about someone not being a true Christian would be turned off enough about the forum that they wouldn't bother skewing the polls.

I agree, I'd be fine with that.

I wouldn't want to put someone in a position where they'd be treated poorly though. I hate to think that that would happen here. :cry:

[~*Lady Trekki*~]

So, is the membership list sticky just in case we do decide to have a list? because we haven't decided to, right?

I saw your post in the sign in thread and agree with you higgs. I think it's a bit early to have a sign in sheet because we havent even decided with the guidelines will be yet.

Personally, if this is going to be another liberal forum I'm not interested. I'm seeing some overt liberals signing up...and please dont be offended, but I have serious reservations about that.

[Joykins]

I think FlagLady was simply providing us with tools. It's up to us to decide to use them or not.

That's fine, but as long as it's there people are going to sign up anyway, since not everyone reads all the threads.