Christianity.SE vs. Survivor

Question

We've had a couple of questions in the format "Are members of $sect_or_subgroup_or_movement really Christian?", and a few more that are asking that exact question, but trying to couch it in terms that sound more reasonable.

Now, I realize that some of you may be reality TV fans, so you might think that you can vote people out of Christianity. (What does that mean? Revoke their license to pray? Ban them from purchasing Bibles? Issue restraining orders against Jesus? How is this productive?) The thing is... once you start voting people off the island, you've given up on the site. There will always be a least popular contestant. If we vote whatever sect we like least this week off the island, soon there will not be enough people to sustain the site. Not to mention, this isn't Baptists.SE, Catholics.SE, Lutherans.SE, and so on -- it's Christians.SE.

It's certainly true that the various Christian sects think the other sects are doing something wrong, else they wouldn't be separate. However, there is one Christianity.SE, and in order for it to be useful to anyone, it must be respectful of everyone. Pointing out who doesn't think $group are real Christians doesn't do anything to share expertise (what we are supposed to be doing here), it only creates drama and conflict.

TLDR;

Christianity Stack Exchange is not a game show. We aren't here to vote people off the island. For the purpose of this site, please assume that the answer to "is X Christian?" is always the same as "does X self-identify as Christian?" It's the only way a group with such diverse cultures and beliefs can get along and do something productive.

All posts asking for the site to pass judgement on some person or group (as opposed to describing a belief system, examining an idea, explaining history, and so on) are off-topic and will be closed/deleted.

Answer 1

I support the direction this site is taking (or I wouldn't be here) and appreciate your efforts to keep the train on the rails. Your wording here is both funny and to the point.

I would just like to suggest a few extra considerations. These are MY views and reflect how I intend to behave here. I will listen to feedback and try to adjust to the community, so please anybody chime in if you think there are things that can be improved.

1. Christianity.SE is not here to either dictate or define the views of it's users. My answers will always reflect my views. In so far as my views line up with some major corpus of professing Christians I don't think it's too difficult to mingle. However, this site should not mandate that I hold a certain position or even censor my stating said view so long as long as it is identified as my view.

   For example, I do not consider either the LDS of JW faiths to be Christian (In return I understand that they do not consider me to be Christian). I used the word faith instead of tradition on purpose. My answers will reflect this view. That does not mean I will not welcome LDS and JWs on to this site. I just tried to help a user edit an LDS question so that it might be on-topic, it would be nice if it could get a real LDS member to answer. I would never advocate a ban or safe zone to isolate US from THEM. I think questions ABOUT and and answers FROM them are on topic and welcome. I will up-vote them per the normal guidelines as long as they are clearly identified. If I see JW views in an answer that does not identify that faith's unique view is being represented, that will get a down-vote an objection comment from me.

   While I expect to see a huge diversity of viewpoints here, I do not want to see the views of my particular tradition mis-represented. Which brings us to the next point...

2. The history of Christianity is full of boundary-setting. It's what we do. From the Old Testament where the chosen people were to set themselves apart from the other nations to today's Church with more flavors than Baskin-Robbins. I think that if this site is going to survive it must do so by recognizing, respecting, and allowing these boundaries, not ignoring or glossing them over.

   "Is X Christian?" questions may be off-topic because "Christian" as defined here is not in itself a meaningful boundary and the site cannot mandate a definition for that term. However in answering questions and identifying their views, users should be free use define their own boundaries and refer to other traditions and their views using whatever guidelines their own traditions provide. Again, I think this only works when POVs are honestly identified. It has to be done respectfully, but it shouldn't be taboo.

Answer 2

This probably belongs as a comment rather than an answer, but it's too long... and furthermore, the original question isn't really a question, any way.

I would like to point out that asking "Are members of X-Movement Christian" is a rather different question than "Is X-Movement a Christian movement." Or rephrased "Do members of X identify themselves as Christian?" is different than "Does X identify itself as Christian?"

I agree we should not be in the business of "voting people off the island."

As an example, "Is X a Christian Rock band?" Some or even all of the members may identify as Christians, making X "a Rock band of Christians", but unless the band identifies itself as a Christian band, the answer to the original question would still be "No." There are many bands I can think of that would match this scenario.

I think the same distinction exists with many movements and other organizations.

This may not be an important distinction to make when deciding which questions are on- or off-topic, except that we may choose to allow questions asking "Does X identify itself as Christian?"

---

Edit

Case in point: This very web. It is comprised largely/mainly of Christians, but the web site does not identify itself as Christian. See here.

Answer 3

I think the question "Is X Christian?" is underspecified. The OP should provide the criteria for it, otherwise it is not answerable. Let me give an example:

Is Luther a Christian?

This is a bad question, it is not constructive, it is too subjective and depends on people's subjective opinion about who can be considered a Christian. Now one can ask the OP to be more specific and provide the criteria for the judgment, e.g.:

What are the current views of Catholic church about Luther? Do they consider him a Christian?

This is much better and can be answered (hopefully objectively). I don't think Catholics and Protestants would differ on the views of Catholic church about the matter. The same thing applies to similar questions, debate and disagreement can be avoided if the question is specific enough to make it answerable objectively without a debate and without appealing to personal opinions.