Being Publicly Critical

[glintofpewter]

If I claim to be the President what is the difference between saying I am not the President and saying I don’t meet the definition of being President? If I say I am not a criminal because I shot someone does not society have the right to say my self definition is wrong?

The criminal has right to jury trial to determine whether or not it was a criminal act. You do not want to ask the assembled here whether they think one of us is Christian.

 

Simply, you can not call people names. Words do mean something. I am not denying that they don't. Again it is simply about calling people names.

 

Dutch

[David]

Let me take one question at a time. If I claim to be the President what is the difference between saying that I am not the President and saying I don't meet the definition of being President?

[JosephM]

David,

There are many sites and forums where one is allowed to tell people they are not what they sincerely believe they are. This is not one. If you said you were president, i would ask you of what and to explain. I might even ask for any evidence. If it were plain to me you were not what you say after you explained, i would bow out and ignore you. Arguing with you would accomplish nothing. When you no longer got the reaction you were hoping for, you would probably leave of your own accord without me ridiculing you for your belief.

 

Just my way of seeing it,

Joseph.

[JosephM]

The difference...

 

We don't tell other people what they are or are not. Its poor ettiquette here and just stirs up the pot and accomplishes nothing. To present a definition which appears valid is constructive. To insist one must accept that definition to me gets personal and accomplishes nothing. It seems to me that people learn best here when they are not attacked and treated with respect as a person regardless of stated views.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

I think this discussion is approaching the absurd with preposterous analogies. No one is suggesting that we accept at face value someone claiming to be Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar or president of the United States.

 

George

[David]

Thank you George. That was like pulling teeth.

 

My point obviously is that self definition is a complicated mix of society and individual self. If we can agree on that then we can discuss what may be less absurd and preposterous.

[GeorgeW]

Thank you George. That was like pulling teeth.

 

My point obviously is that self definition is a complicated mix of society and individual self. If we can agree on that then we can discuss what may be less absurd and preposterous.

 

David,

 

I hope that I have not implied that self definition is not "a complicated mix of society and individual self." Of course it is. But, what I have tried to say is that we should be broad rather than narrow, we should have an attitude that is accepting rather than rejecting, and we should give people the benefit of the doubt. Do you have a problem with that approach?

 

George

[David]

George,

 

Thank you for allowing me some slack here to get to where we can both agree that self definition is a complicated mix of society and individual self. Obviously the next step is to ask how that applies to Christianity and self definition of being a Christian. That is a complicated mix of society and individual self. On the society side we have a whole complex of things to consider and the same goes for on the individual side. It just seems to me that within the progressive "community" there is a tendency to deny any part for the community. Particular values such as acceptance are both derived and practiced within a complex mixture of society and individuals trying to define themselves within that society or community. Liberals have a tendency to overlook how the community/society is essential to the process of course unless you are that island that I talked about.

 

David

[JosephM]

David,

 

"Being publicly critical" is the title of this thread. Simply put our mission here is not to be critical of each other but to seek to understand anothers view.To take from it anything we may find useful and perhaps discard that we do not. Its to encourage each other and offer support in the search. It is not to prove the other wrong or attack the person which usually accomplishes little.. Yes, we can offer a different opposing point of view and supporting testimony or whatever but being critical of the person will not likely be conducive to their reception of something different. . Some here as you know have claimed to channel Jesus. One doesn't have to believe they are genuine or not but one MUST give them the lattitude to express their view with questions, yes, but not with attack.

 

If you want to discuss self definition, please start an appropriate thread so as not to be off topic.

 

Joseph (as Moderator)

[David]

I keep running up against Joseph the moderator. Best if I just return to silence.

[GeorgeW]

I keep running up against Joseph the moderator. Best if I just return to silence.

 

The moderator keeps reminding you of the rules. One can disagree with the ground rules, but one cannot disregard them. Further, continuing to disagree over the same issue, at some point, becomes contentious and argumentative and adds nothing positive to the forum.

 

Although I prefer that you remain and contribute, If you are unwilling to play by the ground rules, I think it is best that you do "return to silence."

 

George

[BillM]

For me, one of the problems here is that, despite the language of inclusivity, to "critique" someone's point-of-view is seen as an attack upon that person. While the language of the 8 Points says that it is important how we treat one another (which I agree with), that language is being interpreted as "never criticise the beliefs of another person", never critique what they say. I was told via PM that I am supposed to accept everyone's viewpoints here. How can I possibly do that with such divergent beliefs and viewpoints?

 

My viewpoints and experiences have changed A LOT since coming here to TCPC. Those who know me know that. This has been helped primarily through people who know that I am more than just my beliefs but who have also challenged me in my beliefs i.e. there is a balance. I was accepted and encouraged to grow. This, to me, is an important part of progressive Christianity. But I also find that this board is becoming more and more censored in that it is now insinuated (and sometimes demanded) that all viewpoints are equally valid and beyond questioning or critiquing, for the sake of "harmony". Harmony in music is not achieved by everyone playing the same note. Neither is it achieved by everyone playing different notes at the same time and insisting that all notes are valid. Harmony is achieved through resonance, through vibrations that are "sympathetic" to one another.

 

Similarly, I find conservative Christianity too restrictive because it insists that everyone play exactly the same note. And I'm finding that progressive Christianity is insisting that everyone be allowed to play any note they want without anyone saying, "That doesn't sound quite right."

 

Yes, I could leave (once and for all - ha ha!), but there is so much POTENTIAL here to help people, so much good that could be done. But I'm of the opinion that if this potential is to be realized 1) people need to be accepted where they are (as I was) but 2) their beliefs should be able to be, in the best sense of the word, considered critically and, if necessary, challenged. Unfortunately, what I currently see going on is a kind of unwarranted simplification that says that accepting people means also accepting all of their beliefs to be true. To me, Jesus found a good balance in accepting everyone while, at the same time, challenging them in their beliefs and actions according to what he believed to be the truth. In my opinion, we need both. Yes, we need to be accepting of people as people. But progressive Christianity is losing its prophetic edge that calls people to transformation. At the center of Jesus' message is the notion of dying to an old way of life and embracing a new God-centered and others-centered way of life. That message will be missing from PC if all it does is to pander the post-modern notion of "I'm okay, you're okay." Loving others sometimes means lovingly challenging them. So I don't find the approach that all beliefs are valid to be truly reflective of Jesus' life or ministry.

 

Again, my 2c.

[David]

The moderator keeps reminding you of the rules. One can disagree with the ground rules, but one cannot disregard them. Further, continuing to disagree over the same issue, at some point, becomes contentious and argumentative and adds nothing positive to the forum.

 

Although I prefer that you remain and contribute, If you are unwilling to play by the ground rules, I think it is best that you do "return to silence."

 

George

 

George,

 

Just a minor point which believe me is minor for me. The rule here was going off topic and I think Norm was the one that brought us off topic and we all followed. I was the one however that was chastised.

 

You prove my major point. The community/society has an important and essential stake in the process. That process has a lot to do with inclusion/exclusion Who are you going to include and who are you going to exclude. Having a strong sense of mission is the best way to do that. Having “ground rules” as you say is another way to include/exclude and I have no quarrel with that. Keep working on this process of inclusion/exclusion. It is hard and you folks who accept the moderator function should be patted on the back more often than you are.

 

Peace and best wishes to you all.

 

David

[JosephM]

For me, one of the problems here is that, despite the language of inclusivity, to "critique" someone's point-of-view is seen as an attack upon that person. While the language of the 8 Points says that it is important how we treat one another (which I agree with), that language is being interpreted as "never criticise the beliefs of another person", never critique what they say. I was told via PM that I am supposed to accept everyone's viewpoints here. How can I possibly do that with such divergent beliefs and viewpoints?

 

Again, my 2c.

 

Bill,

 

Please PM me and tell me who, if a memebr of our moderating team ever told you such a thing as i changed to bold in your quote. The official position here is you DO NOT have to accept everyones viewpoint here. You are as you know, always free to disagree and offer your own perspective as you often do. To accept is to receive with approval in my dictionary. You do not have to approve of someones viewpoint. You are only expected to be kind and show respect for the person and their right to express their viewpoint.

 

JosephM (as Admin)

 

Added -- Clarification ...My use of the word "accept" was defined above by me as receiving with approval. Actually approval is always optional when accepting (receiving) something so one could say it is also correct to say that our policy here is that all members having difficulty accepting points of view and theologies different from their own may find this is not the right place for them. With acceptance, approval or agreement is optional.

[JosephM]

 

Similarly, I find conservative Christianity too restrictive because it insists that everyone play exactly the same note. And I'm finding that progressive Christianity is insisting that everyone be allowed to play any note they want without anyone saying, "That doesn't sound quite right."

 

Again, my 2c.

 

Bill,

 

I am answering in an official capacity so there will be no misunderstanding. That is your perspective of what you believe is an insistence here, As Admin, I strongly disagree that we are insisting you cannot disagree or say that doesn't sound right to me. You are most welcome here to say "that doesn't sound right to me". or "I disagree or strongly disagree for the following reason........" If the above quote by you is what you truly believe then i have done an extremely poor job of communications and for that i apologize to you and any other who got that impression from this sites administration. Enough said by me..

 

JosephM (as Admin)

[BillM]

One last point and then, I, too, will go into silence.

 

Christianity has historically said that Christians find the decisive revelation of God and how we should live in Jesus. This doesn’t mean that Jesus is the only revelation of God. But it does mean that, for Christians, Jesus is the primary revelation of God and God’s will. BTW, much of what I’ve just said comes from Marcus Borg, a very progressive Christian. As Christians, we “see God” through the life and teachings of Jesus. He is, for us, “the Way”. We need not insist that Jesus be “the Way” for everyone, but it seems reasonable that if we wear the name “Christian”, then, yes, we follow Jesus’ Way.

 

If this is true, then, as the 8 Points say, the teachings of Jesus become for us a “plumb line” as to what is Christian (like Jesus) and what is not (unlike Jesus). This doesn’t mean that all other religions or teachings are wrong, just that they may or may not be Christian depending on how closely they harmonize with the teachings of Christ. Therefore, Buddha has some teachings that could well be considered to be Christian. Similarly, Judaism has many teachings which could be considered to be Christian (and vice versa as Jesus was a Jew). In this sense, “Christian” is more an adjective than a noun. I want my life to become more and more Christian, more like Christ.

 

I am certainly against telling people whether or not they are Christians. I have been and will continue to be the recipient of such judgments. But I do think that Christianity, even progressive Christianity, still needs to hold up the person of Jesus and his teachings as the “plumb line” or the compass for what it means to live a Christ-like life. In this sense, beliefs can be publically critiqued to see if they are Christian or not. This doesn’t mean judging or condemning people, it just means seeing if what they believe lines up with the general thrust of Jesus’ teachings, if it harmonizes.

 

It is very possible that TCPC doesn’t want to do this, that in its efforts to be pluralistic, it no longer wants “test all things, hold to what is good” compared to Jesus and his teachings. Perhaps, in its desire to be inclusive, it wants to embrace all religions and philosophies. But I think Christianity, even progressive Christianity, MUST have Jesus and his teachings as its plumb line if it is to wear the name “Christianity”. Christianity should mean something, and that something should go back to Christ, shouldn’t it?

 

I’m not talking about legalism here. I’m not for throwing anyone out. God forbid. I am just asking if Christ and his teachings have to a role play here, not in judging people, but in determining what is Christian or not?

[NORM]

I think Norm was the one that brought us off topic and we all followed.

 

How was my post off topic? It got to the heart of the matter, no?

 

I mean, what you are "criticizing" is what REAL Christianity is. So, my query is on point.

 

BTW, no one has directly answered my question. David, since you have no qualms about deciding who is and isn't a Christian; what say you?

 

Bill?

 

Inquiring minds would like to know...

 

Just to recap: I embrace the teaching of Jesus because of its intrinsic philosophical value; particularly as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount / Plain. I often seek to emulate that philosophy in my own life. I do not, however, believe in propitiation for sin, resurrection, virgin birth, miracles, etc.

 

Is I am or is I ain't - a Christian?

 

 

NORM

[JosephM]

Norm and All,

 

Both David and Bill have announced they were 'going silent and in a sense have indicated they have had their last words on this subject which David originally brought up among some complaints in the OP which was moved from another unrelated thread for this comment ....

 

There seems to be a culture here that we should not be critical of each other.

 

It was later taken off track by a reference by David to a specific member who was banned for calling people non- Christian and took a different course. If you or anyone desires to discuss self identification or what you feel defines a Christian or your related questions above, please start a new thread appropriately titled.

 

I'm closing this thread "Being critical of others publicly" since it is an issue for clarification here only because it is in violation of our approved etiquette and guidelines. In the future members who have problems with those guidelines or the administration of this site should enter their grievances or concerns in the complaints area rather than in a post elsewhere. Our policy of members not being critical publicly of other members was clarified in this thread by moderators and is not open for debate by members.

 

JosephM (as Admin/Moderator)