The value of questions without a denomination/tradition

Question

This site has many good questions that aren't scope to a particular denomination or tradition. Here are some I found tagged with biblical-basis:

• What is the Biblical basis for withholding communion from believers who are unbaptized?
• Biblical basis for the separation of church and state
• Can Elders of a church be young?
• What is the Bible and Christian view on Astrology?
• What exactly do we know about Heaven?

I'm not saying that these questions are perfect and some might be able to be improved, but I think in general that they're pretty decent. Some even ask what the Truth is, but I don't think it's unconstructive.

The on topic page says that questions which ask "what the Bible says about a subject (unless you specify a doctrine/tradition)" aren't constructive, but I disagree. Some are and some aren't. Furthermore it would be a disadvantage to need to restrict these to particular tradition - it would be a shame I think if there were five different versions of the separation of church and state question. There are two advantages of not requiring these questions to specify a tradition: firstly most of the time there is no real difference in answers, which means the same answers will get given in each of those questions. Secondly, when there is a difference, I think it can be good to see them next to each other. For example, in the past the Catholic church hasn't had much separation between church and state, so it would be interesting to see a Catholic answer next to other answers. I think for many issues there will be a generic answer that covers 90% of the denominations, and then one or two exceptions.

Questions can and often should be scoped to a particular denomination or tradition, but I don't think they have to be.

I'd suggest that the on topic page be rewritten. (Some work on that has begun but it should extend to the off topic section too.)

I'd also like to suggest that a slightly different approach be taken with these questions:

1. Firstly generic Christian questions and answers should be allowed
2. Occasionally we may even like to suggest that a question remove a limitation to a denomination if the answers are likely to apply to every denomination
3. We perhaps should expect 'generic' Christian answers to be the default for the site. As a question gathers answers it will become quickly apparent whether or not there are denominational differences. The answers can then specify their background if that will help.
4. And sometimes we should suggest that the question asker add a denomination at the beginning (as we do now.) For example, if you ask about the Biblical basis for infant baptism it's appropriate to specify whether you're looking for a Catholic or Reformed/Covenantal answer because the answers are going to be very different.

Thoughts?

Answer 1

I think that this question is related to the earlier meta post Is "biblical-basis" a de-facto denomination designation?, in that many questions which ask for the "Biblical" or generic "Christian" view are implicitly scoped to a Protestant, sola scriptura, Bible-believing, whatever-you-want-to-call-it family of traditions. If this is the case, then for me the issue is how our general site standards - which ask for a denominational/traditional scope, and authoritative references - adapt to a group which is sceptical of non-Biblical tradition. Many people in this category would object to attributing their beliefs to some named historical tradition: they simply want to say that it is Biblical.

Instead of arguing the point, I've been trying to say something like: "It would be helpful for readers if you could identify which people or groups, in the world today, agree with what you've said here." This wording is meant to avoid the suggestion that those people have authority to declare what is true. It's just asking for a more "sociological" indication of who else reads the Bible in the same way.

Other questions might be unscoped because the author doesn't know which scope might apply, or that there is a denominational difference involved at all. In that case, I think your suggestions are good. I particularly like the idea that scope could be broadened, because I've noticed questions where someone asks for the view of a particular denomination, but the "true" scope is either broader, or doesn't correspond to denominational boundaries at all. (For the latter, I mean that some belief might be held by some Lutherans, some Anglicans, etc., at the same time, but is not universal in any one denomination.)

However, I think multiple complementary answers are not the way to go. We always want it to be possible to choose a single best answer. If answers cover disjoint doctrinal territory then the choice is not meaningful. Equally, if the question is too broad, then an all-encompassing answer might be too long or too vague to qualify as a good answer. So I think that your proposal is basically solid - but if a question is just plain ill-conceived, we shouldn't go to great lengths to rescue it.