According to the FAQ, Christianity.StackExchange is for
"any group that identifies themselves as Christian are to be considered on-topic"
Additionally, it seems to pretty well established that we care about theology, and that:
Given these criteria, what is the minimum bar for establishing the theology of a group?
Numerous times when this issue has come up, we have bounced around the suggestion that an absolute minimum bar would be at least one personal blog describing the theology in question. Frankly, I think this is an absurdly low bar. While it may be what we practically enforce (by down/delete votes as non-answers), the bar we aim for should be much higher.
The personal blog idea is really only useful for theological points. I think the absolute minimum bar for defining a "group" (sect/denominatin/tradition, etc) would be two references to their existece, at least one of which has to be third party. If you can't collect enough references to launch a Wikipedia article describing the existence of a group, then that group (whether or not it in fact exists) has no place on this site.
These references could be one article, page, site or other resource published by the group in question and one other site even just mentioning that they exist. Obviously the quality of something that only this minimum bar would be doubious, but it seems like a reasonable safeguard against people using this as a personal soapbox by claiming to speak for a body that doesn't exist or have any reasonable boundaries.
In chat, a very generous minimum bar was proposed - that claims must be sourced on a blog. Unfortunately, we have found that at least one user has attempted to game the system by merely copying and pasting the same words to pastebin. Clearly, this violates the spirit of that law.
I would propose that at least two of the following minimum bars must be met for theological claims:
Because this site focuses on groups and not individuals, I would argue that some demonstrably evidence of "group" must be in place.
This means that the theology being produced is first and foremost for the consumption of a target group of willing individuals. This could be evidenced either by a position as the leader of a congregation of some form (e.g. every pastor or priest who has or had a functioning congregation, by definition, is creating theology in that context during services) or by virtue of published work that is used by third parties to address issues (e.g. any theological author, from Iraneaus to Lewis to McLaren.)
If there is sufficient evidence to prove to wikipedia that a group exists, then it is "representative of Christian groups' beliefs".
Note: From here on out, the phrase "representative of Christian groups' beliefs" means it is representative of the belief of a Christian groups belief. This is not to imply it is widely held or representative of the "mainstream," but as long as it is properly identified, the answer would considered to be representative of a type of Christian that is on-topic for this site.
Theology being referenced needs to be primarily from an external source. Ideally this should be from a printed work, such as a book, a sermon series, or at minimum a blog that addresses the full spectrum of a systematic theology. Note that books, sermons series, or single-issue advocacy positions do not require a full systematic theology, but in order to be considered "widely held," one should be available. If no systematic theology is available, any reference to the claimant group should be identified as "not widely-held". Absent this or other factors, it is not "representative of Christian groups' beliefs."
Note: Some theology - in particular groups that coalesce around single issues may not have fully developed systematic theologies. Sojourners, for example, a liberal advocacy group that is theological in nature, or "the emerging church" may not have a single systematic theology. Their existence, however, is attested to by statements of principle that frame the issues on which they speak. Jim Wallis (Sojourners) views on caring for the poor would thus be completely "representative of a Christian group's beliefs". His views on eschatalogy would not be considered representative of a "group" unless if it were demonstrated that his views conformed to that of another sect that had a defined statement on the subject.
If a manifesto describing the common core values around which a group exists, or if there are academics (note the plural) with doctoral degrees in relevant fields who can attest to their existence in a third party manner, then the group still exists.
Anybody with a demonstrably available systematic is inarguably on-topic
Ideally, the following topics should be addressed:
Of the bars, this is the highest - but if this can be shown, then the group / sect / whatever is "representative of Christian groups' beliefs."
In the same way that "general knowledge" need not be footnoted, not every theologian referenced need to have this actually shown, but rather it should be assumed that it could be shown. In other words, to claim that Martin Luther (or even Martin Luther King, Jr.!) is "representative of Christian groups' beliefs", one need not actually answer each part of a full systematic theology - one merely need demonstrate that it is possible to do so. Resources are available, for example, to prove that a complete theology exists for every theologian mentioned in this article.
Absent at least two of these minimums bars, I would argue that a theology is "too localized," is "personal" (not group), and is most likely subject to being "novel," "peculiar," or "innovative." The criteria above should exhaustively apply to all groups "representative of Christian groups' beliefs." Absent these factors, answers should be remediated in some fashion.
Being off-topic does not mean that members of the group may not participate - it only means that material may be subject to remediation as described here: What should we do with answers that don't meet the minimum threshhold of Christian *group*?
I think the criterion as it stands is pretty clear. ANY group considering itself Christian is on topic. There don't have to be third-party references - we're not trying to write an encyclopaedia here. If the group exists (possibly, but not necessarily, evidenced by a church website or similar) then that's sufficient to make a question about that group on-topic here.
Obviously spoof questions are not on-topic. A question about the (made up) Christian Church of the Giant Pink Yeti would not be welcome here. But there are many newish church groups around whose existence and theology is not well documented - it would be absolutely wrong to exclude them from this site just because nobody has written a book or a blog post about them.
The exception is when we get into the theological differences between different local churches. Even in the big denominations there are many factions and interpretations, and every local church will have its own customs. We don't want to flood the site with questions about tiny congregations in the back of beyond - so I would say the bar we set shouldn't be about verifiability, but more about relevance. Essentially when we talk about "groups" we don't mean groups of people, we mean groups of groups of people.
Whether or not the question can be answered is a different matter - if nobody in our community knows about that group, then it's unlikely an answer will be quickly forthcoming. But highlighting gaps in our collective knowledge is no bad thing - it actually demonstrates a need that newer users might want to step up to the plate and try to meet.
My personal preference would be to be liberal in what is accepted. The process of accepting answers and voting on questions and answers will inevitably consign what is obscure and uninteresting to a low rank; having a formal policy against such things seems to me to be more than what is needed. If an answer is based on the distinctive theology of the The Western Branch of American Reform Presbylutheranism, then that answer is unlikely to be accepted or upvoted. And a question based on such a distinctive theology is less likely to receive an answer than a question based in a theology of more significance. So why create a policy, when the nature of the site itself should be enough to deal with this problem already?
