So, in this question, @El'endia Starman and I good naturedly batted around the question of whether or not Rob Bell is a denomination. Obviously, he's not that, but it did get me wondering - How prominent does an individual need to be in order to be considered "on topic" for this site?
In other words, who qualifies as "sufficiently notable" people to be considered as either sources for answers or questions?
Theology is on topic. Whether or not specific people are on topic should be secondary to examining the beliefs they have laid out.
Let's take the Rob Bell example, he has written a book in which he lays out some of his theology. that theology and the reasoning behind it is definitely on topic. This leaves both the questioner or answer free to quote Mr. Bell's work to frame and/or answer the question.
People with more public writing are even more open to this kind of discussion and criticism. Calvin, Augustine, Luther, the Popes are basically all fair game because they have volumes of doctrinal writing that should be closely examined.
More modern sources are more difficult, but I would propose trying to limit our discussion of them to what they have put in print, said in their sermons and put on their websites. Specifically the doctrinal issues they raise.
Personally I find the actual doctrinal arguments much more interesting than any discussion of the people themselves, but for sufficiently notable people (Calvin, Luther, Arminius, the Popes, etc) actions they took in their life may be significant to our cultural history (Luther's nailing of the thesis for instance set of a chain reaction that still affects us today).
So to sum up, anyone's doctrine is on topic provided there is sufficient information published to make a reasoned argument one way or another (this is nebulous, but a book, website, or online sermon series is a pretty good start). Actions of sufficiently important historical figures are on topic provided the ramifications of their actions are relevant to the topics of this site.
On the one side of the spectrum, there are the guys that are clearly on topic - the classical "greats" of the faith:
Basically, if people know you by just one name, you're pretty clear on topic. Somewhere in the middle are the theologians that really smart people add in:
If your seminary professor has mentioned them, you're probably on target. Now, to their credit, all of these guys have the advantage of being dead. There is another category - the guys who are still alive, but undoubtedly important:
And, finally, you have the "popular, but probably not classic" contemporaries
On the other end of the spectrum, you'd have:
I'm sure we can all name our own personal person's profile to put a link to here. No matter how tempted you are, please do not do that. Be nice!
Of all these categories, Only this last category would be what I consider "too localized." So, where is this line?
Simply put, theology means challenging assumptions and pointing out internal contradictions. This can only be done when there is a corpus of theology that can be referenced by both adherents and critics alike.
Additionally, this site is not a place for working out theology - it is for the examination of extant theology. In the same way that lawyers have a "discovery phase," in which evidence is considered before introduction, so too new theology may not be simply introduced whenever one feels like it. This site is for critiquing and understanding existing theology, not introducing theology that would be called "peculiar," "novel," or "innovative."
This site's general guidelines are helpful here.
You've come to the right place if you have questions about:
- specific doctrines or doctrinal traditions (Catholicism, Young Earth Creationism, Calvinism, etc.)
- understanding the Bible from the perspective of a specific viewpoint (like those listed above)
- the history of Christianity
Questions that are not constructive include:
- whether some group or person is "Christian"
So questions about the pastor's theology or viewpoint would be on topic, but asking whether the pastor is a True Christian is not.
We've already had some questions about pastors. For example:
To me, the Paul Washer question looks iffy, but it generated a good answer from Mike. The Derek Prince question is off topic in my opinion, but so far I'm the only one who has cast a close vote, so maybe the community sees it differently.
I think there are two kinds of questions that you can ask about any old famous Christian personality.
I'd think we should encourage the first kind of questions as they're actually productive. But we should not shy away from the second kind; only closing them if they're particularly harsh, pointless or don't indicate prior research.
