Brothers, we are not Christians‼

Question

Disclaimer: I still stand behind the concepts that inspired this post, am glad I wrote it, and that this site made it as far as it did. Unfortunately some of the circumstances have changed since I wrote this and I have resigned from being a moderator. You may see Brothers, I must go for my personal take on where things are now.

---

I am a Christian. You say you are. But we are not.¹

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 staff² 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.

---

_{¹ Of course a fourth possibility exists: that you are here and don't claim to be Christian at all. In that case know that this meta post was not written with your issues in mind. This was specifically written to clear up a common misconception among professing Christians about the nature of this site. This was particularly an issue in the early days of beta as a high percentage of users saw this site as a potential mission field and some kind of fought the system when it didn't cater to that. This post was one attempt to bring those disenfranchised folks on board with what was actually happening here. As such I make no apology for using language to argue as one religiously minded man to other religiously minded men.}

_{² I think there is at least one staff moderator who is a professing Christian, but most are not.}

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

This is what the site currently says its about: 'Q&A for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more'. Above Caleb writes 'Brothers, we are not Christians!!' It seems at best misleading, at worst dishonest, and either way very weird to claim to be a site where committed Christians can ask questions but only receive answers that have been judged as acceptable by people who are not committed Chrsitians. Anyone reading the description of the site above would surely conclude that answers are provided by committed Chrsitians. Why would a committed Christian seek guidance on the Bible from someone who isn't a committed Christian? It's utterly preposterous. You do realise the Bible teaches that the whole world (that's everyone who isn't a committed Christian) is under the sway of the devil, don't you?

Answer 3

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?