Are exploratory questions (i.e. ones that develop new theology) off topic?

Question

Since the very early days of this site, I have been fairly outspoken in my opinion that this is not (and should be made to be) an appropriate replacement for churches in researching, formulating and refining the field of theology or the practice of it in the lives of believers. In fact this site has been instrumental in adding "extant" to my favorite words list.

However, I am far from the only voice saying this. I'm going to pick on other mods because part of our job description is to take the heat, but here are other expressions this has taken. I found at least a dozen references in chat where we tried to explain to new users what this site is not for.

We're not a place to develop new theology, we ask and answer questions about established doctrines. — wax eagle (source)

In fact this got canonized when we had our first big reformation and cracked down on question formulations. The answer guidelines that came out of that effort included this:

To put this another way, no original research is allowed. — El'endia Starman

This is easy enough to spot and deal with when the infringement comes from some kook who has a new set of calculations for the end times, a fresh (miss)understanding of some well hashed out orthodox doctrine or is otherwise playing lone ranger. We have a very low bar for identifying what groups' theology is on topic for the site. There has to be at least one person other than you associating themselves with your view somewhere on the internet.

But what about the case of not having a known target with which to scope a question at all and speculating that one might exist? A recent question has brought this variant format to my attention. For the purposes of this meta question please try to ignore the fact that the case study is about a controversial subject matter and just look at the question format.

The question runs on for 4 paragraphs setting up a theological position on an issue and explaining how a related historical issue might be adapted by the church to apply to a modern one. Then it asks whether anybody has done this and whether there is any indication that it would work.

The following exchange¹ basically explains how I took this, as well as notes that the OP does not agree.

This site is not equipped to develop theology. This is certainly something the church needs to be examining, but this site is not the venue for the discussion. We can really only deal with questions against an extant corpus of doctrine. – Caleb

@Caleb: Hence my direct factual questions at the end: "Have any conservative Christians suggested approaching gay marriage this way? Are there any indications that they would be open to such a "middle-ground" approach -- not approving of gay marriage but regulating it as a fact of life?" – metal

@Caleb, I tweaked the question slightly to change the rhetorical question at the beginning into a statement, leaving only the purely factual and on-topic questions at the end. – metal

It may not be this way on your head, but to me this question reads like a politely dressed up version of "I have this idea, anybody think it's a good one". As such I think it is of topic. Maybe change the variables to see where I'm coming from. "I've been researching international relations in the OT and the key arms to be X. This is why we can't solve the Palestinian crisis. If churches would just X we could move forward. Has anybody thought about this, does it sound like a good idea?" You have nothing extant you are asking about, you are theorizing that it must exist. – Caleb

If the same format were followed by some doomsday wacko that figured out the math and knows when judgement day is and was looking for what churches had also solved the riddles, we would send them on their way fast enough. Just because your idea has better theology doesn't mean the format is a good match for this platform. This would devolve into a discussion thread no matter how carefully you try to word that out of it. Most of the question is spent explaining why you think it's a good idea. Answers would follow suit and spend most of their space giving their feedback on the form of opinions. – Caleb

With his last comment I think my analysis was somewhat verified, but the OP still wants this to be on topic for the site:

You're not far off -- it is an idea I had that seemed plausible, and I genuinely wondered if there was anything out there along these lines. It's difficult to get a good google on this, so I was crowdsourcing it, asking a diverse group of knowledgeable people for inside information. – metal

I suggested we take this to meta, but instead of waiting for him I have decided this is an important issue to settle.

(And if you don't see our agree with my point, it's probably time to pop this issue over to meta and solicit the feedback of the community. I might be crazy, in which case getting some other eyes on this would help show that.) – Caleb

So am I crazy? Or are exploratory questions more of a discussion forum thing that we should avoid? What sort of question is "Does anybody out there agree with X?" and is that question format out of scope for this site?

---

_{¹ I have migrated all the original comments on the specific question above to a chat room. This way they are archived, the question on main can be cleaned up, and the focus can go to this meta post.}

Answer 1

The Premise: We do not do new theology here

This is 100% the case as far as I am concerned. Trying to do new theology fails here for several reasons:

1. Truth Questions are off-topic. Any question that is trying to ascertain whether or not a theological position is "right" is already suspect. In presenting a question in the form "Here is a theological position, is it right" falls into truth.

2. Minimum Notability Standards are required. We are an academic site, and we cover areas of academic interest. I, for one, am not interested in answering every variation of: "Hey, I think Jesus actually wore a pink tutu, and therefore we should do likewise!"

3. Questions should be answerable. Doing new theology can only be critiqued in terms of orthodoxy (adherence to traditional patterns and interpretations) or heresy. These are different categories than "right | wrong" or even "reproducible | not-reproducible." There is really no decent criteria upon which an upvote or a selection can really be made. These sorts of things are better on your blog, and you can pay attention to the comments as you choose.

   Absent extant critiques (see I'm glad you like the word too!) there is simply no valid criterion by which the question can truly be answered. As such, it would also be considered 'primarily opinion based.'

This case

This was the closest thing to making this question salvageable:

Have any conservative Christians suggested approaching gay marriage this way? Are there any indications that they would be open to such a "middle-ground" approach -- not approving of gay marriage but regulating it as a fact of life?

So, I'm actually okay with this question IFF the focus is on "Is this the denominational position of any group?" that is a legitimate question.

Unfortunately, the question begins to slide when it goes into "Would anybody be open to this approach?" Again - not fully off-topic, but it begins to sound like, "Won't anyone agree that I am right here?" I may be reading too much into the question, but my spider sense tingled that the question wasn't really focusing on "Is this the position" but rather "shouldn't this be the position?"

If I believed that the OP would have ben satisfied with, "Yes, this is the [Anglican | Rastafarian | Metropolitan Community Church] position, as evidenced by this statement", I would have been an upvoter. But let's be honest - the OP sounds like he wants someone to interact with the proposal, not report on who it reflects.

Do I believe this could have been answered well? Yes. Do I think more than 5% of the attempts would handle it correctly? No.

As such, the new theology is only one defect of the question - the truth seeking point really seems to be the overriding concern, and is therefore not of interest.

Verdict

This question is probably the best example of how one could do new theology - but even it fails. They say 'hard cases make bad law,' but I'd argue here that 'hard cases prove the law.' I voted it down, and think it should be considered 'primarily opinion based.'

Answer 2

Disclaimer: I am the original poster, and a user of the word "extant."

I am generally on board with the site's policy not to do original research, but I don't think my question qualifies as such. It is more of an instance of looking for advocates who have developed a particular view within some tradition.

My best hope for this question is that some knowledgeable person(s) would be able to say, "Yes, the {fill in the blank}s have taken this stance and wrote a whitepaper on it {here}. The summary of their argument is a little different than you have put it here. They said, ...."

If that is not possible, then perhaps it is better suited for a discussion forum than a Q&A site, but it wasn't (and isn't) clear to me that it is not possible.

I see a good bit of difference between original research of the "end times crackpot" variety and what I was asking here. I'm looking for someone applying a set of accepted hermeneutical techniques to an issue I've not heard them applied to. That's the crux of my question. (I could try to make that more concise, but @Caleb says above that the length and what some might consider over-explanation is not the issue.)

For comparison, I recall several other questions that have followed the same "crowdsourcing" pattern that my question does. For instance, this question, which was not shutdown, asks for traditions with speculations about what heaven will be like. And this question asks for some tradition's way of differentiating between superstition and the spiritual.

Perhaps you'll say that all of these questions should have been shutdown. (In fact, the second one was put on hold, and I practically had to beg @waxeagle to let me try to answer it. In the end I think it came out a reasonably good Q&A and one that I would hope and trust is on-topic for the site.)

Answer 3

I opine that these "exploratory questions" fit under the umbrella term of "opinion-based question", which would be more suitable in a casual conversation, be it online or offline.

The question runs on for 4 paragraphs setting up a theological position on an issue and explaining how a related historical issue might be adapted by the church to apply to a modern one. Then it asks whether anybody has done this and whether there is any indication that it would work.

Critique: It sets up a theological position. The problem is, the so-called "theological position" may be nothing but a person's unverifiable opinion or proposition. I do not think the Stack Exchange should make news; it should just report the news. That is, contemporary applications of theology in new situations based on older theology may be (1) anachronistic and (2) off-topic for this website due to its opinion-based nature.

Answer 4

If it is worded carefully, I think it is on-topic. Example,

1. I believe this scripture means X. Which denomination believe this way?

2. Which denomination believe that X is true?

3. Which denomination believe in X?

4. Which group believe that X is sin?

5. Which group practice X?

   etc...

That question can also be reworded to fit with the above examples, I think. But the post is too long and a question with huge content is always easy to get misunderstood.

My suggestion, make your question as short as possible.

Do you agree with me fellows?