up vote 38 down vote favorite
2

I am a Christian. You say you are. But we are not.

It seems that a lot of folks are having a hard time wrapping their heads around the scope of this site. While I respect the SE staff* and have been impressed with the effort they have taken (and judgement they have shown) in nurturing this site into existence, I think there is a sense in which -as outsiders- they lack the inside perspective and lingo necessary to communicate with and market to a Christian audience. I do not pretend to have a magic silver bullet that will convince everyone of the value of this site as they proposed it, but I hope my perspective will help at least a few others to grok where this is going and then make informed decisions about their participation.

Here is the my main point. Don't let the URL or title fool you. This is a secular site. This is not a church sanctioned or sponsored ministry site. It is a secular QnA site sponsored as a for-profit venture by a secular company.

This isn't a bad thing, in fact it might be a good thing, but we have to understand this point. SE has not been deceitful in any way nor have they tried to pull wool over our eyes; in fact I feel that they have shown considerable integrity in their dealings. However, we need to understand that this venture is a fundamentally different thing than what we would dream up and build for ourselves as a ministry or resource site.

I think SE sites are in a league of their own so this is not a comparison, but consider the question "What if this was Yahoo Answers?" for a second. As Christians we need to take a step back and realize that this is somebody else's commercial venture that they are inviting us to participate in. They are cooperative in tailoring it to our specific community needs but we still have to play by their rules.

In fact I think this realization makes it easier to participate. We are wading into a niche category on a secular QnA network where any viewpoint is fair game. Personally I am up for that. I hope some of you are too.

I'll spare you repeating the full rant, but for myself, as long as SE doesn't try to dictate or censor our respective beliefs, we religiously identify our respective viewpoints, and nobody tries to ascribe their personal views to a larger corpus of people than are willing to sign off on them, then there is a place in my life for participating here.

Here be dragons. Out spears, up shields, and onward! But we aren't pointing those things at each other.

If you are more inclined to resent rather than celebrate the differences between us, then this may not be the site for you.

Our differences are more than divisions between us, they are boundaries that define us. I think there are more boundaries than is necessary, but the only hope we have of crossing them is to identify and respect them.

* I think there is at least one staff moderator who is a professing Christian, but most are not.

share
5  
Crazy note: SE software apparently won't let you use an exclamation point at the end of a question title, it changes it to a question mark! – Caleb♦ Aug 27 '11 at 11:06
1  
It's correct in not letting you tack a ! at the end of a question... because then it's not a question. Or can you phrase and actual question that ends in an exclamation mark? No, your title doesn't count, because it is not a question (so what does it do here? ;-)) – Jürgen A. Erhard Aug 28 '11 at 4:54
10  
I think this site is an awesome opportunity to "Show'em what Christians are" (...and they'll know we are Christians by our love). Our good questions are going to be tweeted, and show up on StackExchange.com right along with cherry pie filling recipes and ingenious perl scripts. – Peter Turner Aug 29 '11 at 15:55
2  
@Caleb: I highlighted a key phrase to your post which I feel is paramount. If I over-stated your point, feel free to roll back. – Robert Cartaino♦ Aug 30 '11 at 3:10
@RobertCartaino: Looks good to me. I'm actually working on a separate post to elaborate on that point but it's going to take some time to get together. – Caleb♦ Aug 30 '11 at 10:00
for myself, as long as SE doesn't try to dictate or censor our respective beliefs, we religiously identify our respective viewpoints, and nobody tries to ascribe their personal views to a larger corpus of people than are willing to sign off on them, then there is a place in my life for participating here. Is sufficient. Why all the other blather at the top? Couldn't you shorten that? Please edit to make more concise since this is a top rated question on meta. Thanks. – dongle26 Sep 30 '12 at 23:13
3  
@dongle26: I wrote this specifically because I thought setting the stage was important. You can get whatever you like out of it but don't you think maybe this became a top rated question because of the background it gives? Why would I butcher it up after it has already proved valuable in this form? – Caleb♦ Oct 18 '12 at 7:58
perhaps "Sisters and Brothers" would be more appropriate? – Alypius Feb 25 at 19:32
@Alypius. Sometimes there is more to be gained in literary value from not catering to politically correctness. Sisters are by no means excluded from the meaning here, and using PC speak would get in the way of what I was trying to say. See also, ἀδελφός. – Caleb♦ Feb 25 at 19:58
I know you don't mean to exclude women. But it either does that, or it refers to women as brothers. I'm familiar with the background. The literary value is lost on women and men who don't know the literature or who disagree that it would be appropriate to this case. In this age, excluding one sex means something that it did not in ages past. The title seems at odds with a post that argues for a "secular" and inclusive approach. Yes, it might make the title sound less dramatic, and yes, people will brush it off as PC. But some others won't. – Alypius Feb 25 at 20:33
@Alypius: It seems you missed the entire point of this post. I may be arguing for a secular approach, but I am arguing as one religiously minded man to other religiously minded men (in the general sense that includes woman). As such, I make no apologies for speaking using their own language, not that of secular outsiders. Even if I did, I think I can make a case that secular culture understands this sort of language perfectly. – Caleb♦ Feb 25 at 20:43

2 Answers

up vote 23 down vote

Right... The site is named, "Christianity", not "Christians". It is, like most of the Stack Exchange sites, intended as a vessel for Q&A on a specific topic; who contributes to filling it, what they believe or how they identify themselves... We have no control over these, nor should we.

For the record, most of the SE staff were really hoping the Biblical Hermeneutics site would launch before (or instead of...) this one. Why? Because this is a Q&A system - it does not, and to a large extent cannot work as a tool for evangelism or ministry. The purpose is to make finding specific answers to specific questions quick and easy... If the "wrong" questions are asked, then this just speeds up finding "wrong" answers. (And by "wrong" here I mean questions that make no sense outside of a specific, non-universal doctrine)

The only thing that gives me hope for this is the continued existence of the Parenting site. Granted, parenting is probably less controversial in some ways, but there are similar issues with fundamentally incompatible beliefs as to what is correct; it's no mistake that the parent-child metaphor is so often used to describe our relationship with God.

Still, there's a sticking point: while I might be convinced to simply ignore questions from parents whose approach to parenting I see as fundamentally flawed, it is much more difficult to in good conscience ignore questions based upon what I believe is heresy, recognizing that unchallenged assertions may serve as a stumbling block to others.

Our differences are more than divisions between us, they are boundaries that define us. I think there are more boundaries than is necessary, but the only hope we have of crossing them is to identify and respect them.

This is... Roughly-speaking... The only thing that gives me any reason to be optimistic about the site. The chance that, out of love and respect for one another we might find it possible to tolerate problematic topics, not by making ourselves blind to them, but as opportunities to remove from our own eyes that which already blinds us.

share
1  
4  
@Shog9 I disagree with it does not, and to a large extent cannot work as a tool for evangelism or ministry, while it is not a substitution for a church it does show that Christians can have open minds about ideas and have intelligent thoughts, questions, discussion about topics. I believe one big misconception of Christians is their lack of intelligence/reasoning skills. And those that want to find more info on Christianity can come here for straight answers, even though those answers can change depending on the answer's denomination. – Patrick Aug 28 '11 at 21:25
1  
You know, you've got two only things that give you hope for this site in your answer. – Wikis Apr 13 '12 at 10:44
1  
@Wikis: heh, yeah, that's unfortunate... I probably meant that Parenting offers an example of such a topic working on SE, and Caleb's attitude offers a way to avoid the pitfalls of not being Parenting. – Shog9♦ Apr 13 '12 at 13:28
Jews have different beliefs too and that site made it out of beta. I think its enough that we state in our profiles what we believe. I know so much about the various Christian teachings that I can figure out what teaching they come from without them stating. People have a right to see all opinions and pick the one they want to accept. – dongle26 Sep 30 '12 at 23:26
up vote -2 down vote

To me it looks like a really really terrible policy because it makes all of us here a bit hypocrites on this site. If I don't consider "Jehovah's witnesses" to be my brothers in Christ (because they don't pray to Christ and teach that praying to Him is wrong, while the Bible clearly shows us that the early followers WERE praying to Him (Acts 7:59) and were being killed for this practice (Acts 9:5,6,10,13,14,17,20,21), which means that it was a matter of life and death to them) why should I pretend as if I considered them to be Christians? And what's the main basis for this policy? Just the fear of having someone here voted down?! That looks to me like quite a pathetic reason, really! If you are really afraid of the voting war here - just completely shut down this possibility to vote on this site and that's it!

By the way, JW wouldn't consider me to be their brother in Christ either. What's the point to force them to be hypocritical here too? That just doesn't make any sense.

I don't see any problem in having this format:

Answerer 1: Hi, it's a great question. I am a Mormon, and according to our teaching we consider this matter in <this way> because <premise 1> and <premise 2> and so on.

Answerer 2: Hi, I liked your question. I am a Lutheran, and according to our teaching we consider this matter in <this way> because <premise 1> and <premise 2> and so on.

Answerer 3: Hi, I liked your question. I am a Christian atheist, and according to the teaching of the folks of my ilk this matter is viewed in <this way> because <premise 1> and <premise 2> and so on.

now if you are afraid that the answerer 1 will confront (in the comments) the answer 3 over his premise 2, and if you are afraid that the answerer 2 will start challenging answerer 1 on the point of his premise 1, then just forbid answerers to communicate with each other! Just block it on the site. Allow answerers only to communicate with OP and there will be no need for answerers to show respect toward each other, when in fact they don't have any mutual respect. Allow only answerer ⇌ OP communication and ban answerer ⇌ answerer communication

Lastly: We've even had witnessed here a lot of cases of having disagreements between two answerers belonging to the same Christian tradition or group, haven't we?

share
What is a Christian atheist? – quantumSoup Aug 3 '12 at 20:38
@quantumSoup - Read my polemics with one of them here: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/5321/… To me, the concept of being a "Christian atheist" is almost as nonsensical as being a "non-Islamic Muslim". – brilliant Aug 4 '12 at 1:49
That's one of the reasons we're doing the blog. Have you been reading it? Do you want to contribute :)? – Peter Turner Aug 4 '12 at 3:43
@PeterTurner - No, I haven't read it. Where is it exactly? What is its purpose? – brilliant Aug 4 '12 at 3:45
it's here we call it the "Eschewmenical Blog". The purpose is for several authors from different denominations to tackle monthly subjects. This month is the "nature of biblical authority" I take the Catholic view point, Jon Ericson takes the Evangelical etc... It's pretty good, well I think so at least. – Peter Turner Aug 4 '12 at 3:50
I consider Jehova's Witnesses to be misguided and that the vast majority of Americans ignore their teachings, so why not post your own answer too? And comment that that is a JW point of view if that is not made clear? People will pick what they want to believe. That is after all, the way God made us. People have a choice of accepting him or not. – dongle26 Sep 30 '12 at 23:21
@dongle26 - "... so why not post your own answer too? And comment that that is a JW point of view" - It looks like you are taking me for one of the JW, but I am not one of them. – brilliant Oct 1 '12 at 0:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged