So what's this forum about?

[Hans Deventer]

In recent years, the general theology forum has turned into a battlefield rather than a discussion platform where we can actually learn from each other. I don't know what exactly the reason is, but I do know it didn't used to be that way, and I want back what we lost.

Thinking about this, I ran into a definition of "post conservative theology" on Roger E. Olson's blog (http://rogereolson.com/2011/04/13/a-good-description-of-postconservative-evangelical/), that he found in a book by one Steven B. Sherman, entitled Revitalizing Theological Epistemology: Holistic Approaches to the Knowledge of God (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co., 2010).

The author describes a “postconservative evangelical” as follows:



“Basically, they compose a loose coalition of thinkers who are seeking to facilitate a number of ‘beyond’ moves, theologically: beyond the agenda of the modernist/fundamentalist dichotomy toward what they see as a more holistic theology; beyond classical foundationalist epistemology toward alternative concepts of knowledge; beyond concentration on rationalism toward incorporating additional ways of knowing; beyond inerrancy debates and concerns toward an instrumental use of scripture; beyond academy-centered theologizing toward ecclesial and community-oriented thinking; beyond gatekeeping on boundary-setting doctrinalism toward a generous orthodoxy with pietistic emphasis; and finally, beyond what they view as a fixation on the concerns of modernity often motivated by a fear of liberalism, toward a more positive view and selective appropriation of postmodern insights.” (9-10)

I like it and think this is helpful, because it describes what I'd like to discuss on NazNet, but have no longer been able to due to endless diversions and attacks from views I'm simply not interested in.

Two remarks:

1. I changed "conservative" into "traditional", because I see it both as going beyond conservatism as well as beyond traditional liberalism.

2. The key word in the title of this forum is "post". Exactly because it is post traditional theology, we're not interested to be convinced to return to where we came from. Been there, done that. So if you


believe that developments in Arminianism after 1609 are bad, or in Wesleyanism after 1791: don't post here.
don't like new developments in theology: don't post here.
feel you should defend traditional theology against today's heresies: don't post here.


But if you do want to think "beyond" the above mentioned borders, you are very, very welcome to post here.

I hope this is clear. If not, I'll be happy to explain further.

[Paul DeBaufer]

Count me in. I am so tired of the endless debates which are simply people talking past one another. Thank you Hans for creating this forum.

[John Reilly]

Christians need to rediscover the spiritual disciplines of Christian Conferencing. Holiness Today in the Nov/Dec 2010 issue posted a "Covenant of Kindness" as guidelines for Christian Conversation. A Thread on NAZNET posted this Covenant. Dr. Henry Knight, a Wesleyan Methodist wrote a book, "The Conversation Matters" which explores the importance of Christians being able to engage in meaningful conversation. John Wesley promoted "Christian Conferencing" (conversation) as an important means of grace. I look forward to this forum.

[Gary Creely]

Interesting concept. I will be interested to see where these conversations lead.

[Ian Gentles]

Sounds interesting observing for now, or until i understand what is being said

[Dale Cozby]

I am going to lurk for awhile too Ian. I am not sure I can handle theology without getting all hardnosed about something sooner or later.

[Ryan Scott]

I am going to lurk for awhile too Ian. I am not sure I can handle theology without getting all hardnosed about something sooner or later.

I'm not sure being hardnosed is a bad thing here, so long as its expressed with grace. We need people to say, "what about this tradition of _____ hundred years? We just also need people who are willing to say, "I can't buy that line of thought, but God bless you."

I think you'll figure out your place here with some lurking, especially if those of us posting can respond with the same measure of grace.

[Shea Zellweger]

In recent years, the general theology forum has turned into a battlefield rather than a discussion platform where we can actually learn from each other. I don't know what exactly the reason is, but I do know it didn't used to be that way, and I want back what we lost.

Thinking about this, I ran into a definition of "post conservative theology" on Roger E. Olson's blog (http://rogereolson.com/2011/04/13/a-good-description-of-postconservative-evangelical/), that he found in a book by one Steven B. Sherman, entitled Revitalizing Theological Epistemology: Holistic Approaches to the Knowledge of God (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co., 2010).

The author describes a “postconservative evangelical” as follows:



“Basically, they compose a loose coalition of thinkers who are seeking to facilitate a number of ‘beyond’ moves, theologically: beyond the agenda of the modernist/fundamentalist dichotomy toward what they see as a more holistic theology; beyond classical foundationalist epistemology toward alternative concepts of knowledge; beyond concentration on rationalism toward incorporating additional ways of knowing; beyond inerrancy debates and concerns toward an instrumental use of scripture; beyond academy-centered theologizing toward ecclesial and community-oriented thinking; beyond gatekeeping on boundary-setting doctrinalism toward a generous orthodoxy with pietistic emphasis; and finally, beyond what they view as a fixation on the concerns of modernity often motivated by a fear of liberalism, toward a more positive view and selective appropriation of postmodern insights.” (9-10)

I like it and think this is helpful, because it describes what I'd like to discuss on NazNet, but have no longer been able to due to endless diversions and attacks from views I'm simply not interested in.

Two remarks:

1. I changed "conservative" into "traditional", because I see it both as going beyond conservatism as well as beyond traditional liberalism.

2. The key word in the title of this forum is "post". Exactly because it is post traditional theology, we're not interested to be convinced to return to where we came from. Been there, done that. So if you


believe that developments in Arminianism after 1609 are bad, or in Wesleyanism after 1791: don't post here.
don't like new developments in theology: don't post here.
feel you should defend traditional theology against today's heresies: don't post here.


But if you do want to think "beyond" the above mentioned borders, you are very, very welcome to post here.

I hope this is clear. If not, I'll be happy to explain further.

I'm a bit curious about this idea, Hans...
Although I am more than happy to explore new theological frontiers, I still see them as a part of ~2000 years of theological tradition (for instance, I'm writing a rather extensive paper on Narrative Homiletics which uses a book written in the 2nd century as its primary source, even though "Narrative Preaching" and "Narrative Theology" are often treated like new things). I certainly see the value in not constantly being told about something some said 50, 500, or 5000 years ago as a sort of "proof text," but I'm having difficulty seeing how we can really do theology apart from tradition.
Is it more about attitude? In other words, if someone is fond of Wesley, or Arminius, or even Aquinas, and uses that person as a primary resource for her/his theological positions, but does so in such a way that is not combative or defensive, is that person posting in the spirit of this forum?

[Hans Deventer]

I'm a bit curious about this idea, Hans...
Although I am more than happy to explore new theological frontiers, I still see them as a part of ~2000 years of theological tradition (for instance, I'm writing a rather extensive paper on Narrative Homiletics which uses a book written in the 2nd century as its primary source, even though "Narrative Preaching" and "Narrative Theology" are often treated like new things). I certainly see the value in not constantly being told about something some said 50, 500, or 5000 years ago as a sort of "proof text," but I'm having difficulty seeing how we can really do theology apart from tradition.

We can't. But neither do we need to. I think the Sherman quote explains a lot, but if it is not sufficiently clear: post traditional is not post tradition. Tradition, after all, is part of the Wesleyan quadrilateral. Nor should it ever be desirable to pretend 2000 years of church history don't exist. The fundamental point is that the forum is meant for those who respect 2000 years of tradition (in stead of 100) but don't want to be limited by it, as if nothing good can be found outside it.



Is it more about attitude? In other words, if someone is fond of Wesley, or Arminius, or even Aquinas, and uses that person as a primary resource for her/his theological positions, but does so in such a way that is not combative or defensive, is that person posting in the spirit of this forum?

No, that person is not. You post in the spirit of the forum if you like Wesley (for instance), but are willing to move further. That's the crucial issue.

When behaviour were the issue, the moderators/hosts should deal with it. Bad behaviour should never be tolerated, on whatever forum.

[Todd Erickson]

Maybe it's the sort of thing where i do not have to be bound by the bad ideas that Wesley (or Calvin) had in order to appreciate the good ideas that they had?

[Stu Weber]

Are you saying that we can quote from Paul, Peter, and John....then take a leap forward in time, ignoring almost 2000 yrs of theological work, and use only the work of theologians from the 1980 or 1990 forward?

How do you set the boundaries of what can or cannot be used as a reference point for a theological argument? So, I can't quote Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine, nor Clement. I presume i cannot quote William Greathouse or Ray Dunnin? Stott or Moo? Can I quote Pinnock or Wiley? Theologians from the 80s, or 90s? How do you draw the line? Or are we only to quote Bell, Rollins and Oord?

[Paul DeBaufer]

Are you saying that we can quote from Paul, Peter, and John....then take a leap forward in time, ignoring almost 2000 yrs of theological work, and use only the work of theologians from the 1980 or 1990 forward?

How do you set the boundaries of what can or cannot be used as a reference point for a theological argument? So, I can't quote Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine, nor Clement. I presume i cannot quote William Greathouse or Ray Dunnin? Stott or Moo? Can I quote Pinnock or Wiley? Theologians from the 80s, or 90s? How do you draw the line? Or are we only to quote Bell, Rollins and Oord?

I'm not Hans, but I don't think he is saying that at all. I think that it is fine to have been informed by all those you cite, but that this forum is for carrying the Gospel message and extending Wesleyan/Arminian theology into the postmodern/postChristian age, extending into the emerging culture rather than being stuck in modernity and stuck with the modern, rationalistic mindset.

[Benjamin Burch]

Are you saying that we can quote from Paul, Peter, and John....then take a leap forward in time, ignoring almost 2000 yrs of theological work, and use only the work of theologians from the 1980 or 1990 forward?

How do you set the boundaries of what can or cannot be used as a reference point for a theological argument? So, I can't quote Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine, nor Clement. I presume i cannot quote William Greathouse or Ray Dunnin? Stott or Moo? Can I quote Pinnock or Wiley? Theologians from the 80s, or 90s? How do you draw the line? Or are we only to quote Bell, Rollins and Oord?

I take Hans to mean that if you are only interested in defending the typical view of hell, then this is not the forum to post in when folks are talking about other views. Naturally this can and will be informed by many older theologians. Or, when folks want to discuss Open Theology, if someone wants to defend classical Arminianism and quote arminius and Wesley, this is not the forum for themto post in.

It seems, to me, to be an attempt to be able to have conversations on topics with folks who are genuinely interested in doing so.

[Todd Erickson]

Are you saying that we can quote from Paul, Peter, and John....then take a leap forward in time, ignoring almost 2000 yrs of theological work, and use only the work of theologians from the 1980 or 1990 forward?

How do you set the boundaries of what can or cannot be used as a reference point for a theological argument? So, I can't quote Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine, nor Clement. I presume i cannot quote William Greathouse or Ray Dunnin? Stott or Moo? Can I quote Pinnock or Wiley? Theologians from the 80s, or 90s? How do you draw the line? Or are we only to quote Bell, Rollins and Oord?

Maybe an easier way to put it would be this: you like to have certain kind of discussions, and we're all very familiar with them. Any attempt at a different line of discourse will generally be derailed by you, or Marcus, or Ben Young, or various others, pursuing the sort of traditional manner you do.

Nobody's saying you can't. But you wouldn't do it in this forum, you would continue doing it in the other one. If you try to do it in this forum, one suspects it would be declared off topic.

[Hans Deventer]

Are you saying that we can quote from Paul, Peter, and John....then take a leap forward in time, ignoring almost 2000 yrs of theological work, and use only the work of theologians from the 1980 or 1990 forward?

How do you set the boundaries of what can or cannot be used as a reference point for a theological argument? So, I can't quote Wesley, Aquinas, Augustine, nor Clement. I presume i cannot quote William Greathouse or Ray Dunnin? Stott or Moo? Can I quote Pinnock or Wiley? Theologians from the 80s, or 90s? How do you draw the line? Or are we only to quote Bell, Rollins and Oord?

You can quote whomever you like. BUT, you cannot reject new developments because they are new here. So quoting anyone with an air of, "this is the last word on the subject" or "this is how a true Wesleyan would think", "this doesn't align with how evangelicals generally read the Scriptures" etc is definitely out of order.

With "traditional" I'm not referring to the entire tradition of the church's history, but to tradition as it is understood by the grassroots of the church, which usually focusses on a pretty narrow part of our history and rejects anything beyond (and usually doesn't care about anything before till we get to the NT).

[Scott Moseley]

So you want a safe place to discuss Emergent (thought that done) Theology without being called on the carpet by "traditional" Nazarene convention. I think the Concerened Folks will love this forum.

[Hans Deventer]

So you want a safe place to discuss Emergent (thought that done) Theology without being called on the carpet by "traditional" Nazarene convention. I think the Concerened Folks will love this forum.

Scott, nothing is safe on the internet. Even if we made it a closed forum. All I seek is a place where we can discuss an issue without each and every time ending up in a useless and fruitless discussion that we already have had more times than anyone can remember. I've tried to break that circle.

And I don't think the concerned folks will read anything new. We were already hell-bound anyway (in their view).

[Scott Moseley]

Scott, nothing is safe on the internet. Even if we made it a closed forum. All I seek is a place where we can discuss an issue without each and every time ending up in a useless and fruitless discussion that we already have had more times than anyone can remember. I've tried to break that circle.

And I don't think the concerned folks will read anything new. We were already hell-bound anyway (in their view).

Ok I am just trying to clarify your intent and I think its a good idea to converse. Let the conversation begin. However the problem is that the discussion is hosted by Naznet.com which declares itself Nazarene friendly making it extremely difficult to offer a one sided discourse of theological positions contrary to "traditional" mainstream Naz thought without allowing the "tradtional " view to speak.

Your discussion regretfully might be more satisfying to all concerened if hosted elsewhere under another banner.

[Todd Erickson]

Ok I am just trying to clarify your intent and I think its a good idea to converse. Let the conversation begin. However the problem is that the discussion is hosted by Naznet.com which declares itself Nazarene friendly making it extremely difficult to offer a one sided discourse of theological positions contrary to "traditional" mainstream Naz thought without allowing the "tradtional " view to speak.

Your discussion regretfully might be more satisfying to all concerned if hosted elsewhere under another banner.

The problem being that the truly "concerned" are mostly satisfied to sit outside of this community and critique it. And the conversations that have occurred so far within Naznet are often violently derailed by "yes, but this violates my traditional understanding of this principal, and I demand that you pay attention to my demands and not continue with the discussion that you wanted to have".

I was advised by somebody who wasn't even, so far as I'm aware, associated with the CotN last night on Facebook not to come here because the forum is full of heretics. This by somebody who stated quite clearly that as Christians, we are called to judge one another and rebuke them as a show of love, and that no other form of love is possible until there is nothing left to rebuke.

I can stand to be ignored by somebody like that, I think. If this forum becomes the sort of litmus test where the truly righteous cannot abide to be near me, then perhaps it is entirely useful. After all, my saviour came for the sick, not the truly righteous. And I'm a very sick man.

[Shea Zellweger]

Ok I am just trying to clarify your intent and I think its a good idea to converse. Let the conversation begin. However the problem is that the discussion is hosted by Naznet.com which declares itself Nazarene friendly making it extremely difficult to offer a one sided discourse of theological positions contrary to "traditional" mainstream Naz thought without allowing the "tradtional " view to speak.


Scott,
If I'm reading Hans correctly, then I think you're a little off here. It doesn't appear that he's proposing that we have a one-sided discourse, or that we only discuss things which are contrary to traditional thought. Rather, it appears that what he's saying is that although we embrace tradition, we don't act as though some person had the final word on a subject- I can agree with Wesley's position, and I can explain why I agree with Wesley's position, and be a welcome part of this forum. However, if I just present a block quote from Wesley and act as though because he said it, we must all agree, then I'm not posting in the spirit of the forum. This goes for any other theologian as well. It's not that we're required to agree or disagree with this or that theologian, it's that we do not treat the words of theologians as though they are infallible or protected from questioning and/or disagreement.

I'd also hesitate to say that this is specifically about "emergent" theology, unless you're classifying all new theological reflection as "emergent."

[Hans Deventer]

Ok I am just trying to clarify your intent and I think its a good idea to converse. Let the conversation begin. However the problem is that the discussion is hosted by Naznet.com which declares itself Nazarene friendly making it extremely difficult to offer a one sided discourse of theological positions contrary to "traditional" mainstream Naz thought without allowing the "tradtional " view to speak.

Your discussion regretfully might be more satisfying to all concerned if hosted elsewhere under another banner.

Scott, thanks for seeking clarity. It is important that no misunderstandings arise, and really, I've been trying to be as clear as I possibly can. Shea gave a good answer. We're not closing NazNet to opposing views. The forum is merely meant to separate discussions. If so desired, we could also open up a "traditional" forum under the same general rules, where people could freely discuss traditional views, without feeling attacked by less traditional views. I'd be perfectly happy with that.

The idea of NazNet is building community. Unfortunately, that means that sometimes, for some conversations to happen, we need to restrict their attendance because otherwise community is destroyed rather than build up.

[Rich Schmidt]

I think this new forum is a great idea, Hans. I'm glad to see it and look forward to the conversations here.

I'm glad NazNet is divided into various forums. They help keep the conversations focused and help us all to find the conversations we want to participate in. It doesn't "divide" the community any more than the various sections of a library "divide" the library's patrons.

[Scott Moseley]

The problem being that the truly "concerned" are mostly satisfied to sit outside of this community and critique it. And the conversations that have occurred so far within Naznet are often violently derailed by "yes, but this violates my traditional understanding of this principal, and I demand that you pay attention to my demands and not continue with the discussion that you wanted to have".



Thats exactly what I mean. (and shoot a guy cant even use the word "concerned" any more :) ) The idea for the forum is a good one and there should be place where ideas, thoughts as Hans has put forth , or whatever can be kicked around, chewed on, argued, etc etc.. But the problem is that because its published on Naznet, these thoughts are somehow construed as officially sanctioned by the CotN... or as attacks against the CotN..Its almost as if each discussion is some sort of position paper. Just by being posted here, there will be many drawn and ready to "defend" . ie Attack and accuse. I dare say that that positions earlier posted on naznet which drew so much rankle ...would have hardly caused a stir and certainly no accusations of heresay if they had been spoken as part of live public panel discussion before thousands of Nazarenes. But becuse they were published on the web under the title Naznet all hell broke out. Sorry but I'm not optimistic that Han's Idea will work out primarily because of the name of the domain. Good luck. Now whats the first Thread?

[Benjamin Burch]

So you want a safe place to discuss Emergent (thought that done) Theology without being called on the carpet by "traditional" Nazarene convention. I think the Concerened Folks will love this forum.

I how they do!!

[Hans Deventer]

But becuse they were published on the web under the title Naznet all hell broke out.

Then perhaps it's time to remind everyone of what is on NazNet Central:



"NazNet is a site for members and friends of the Church of the Nazarene but has no official connection to the denomination --"

It never had, and as I understand Dave, it never will.

[Rich Schmidt]

In my mind, this new forum is for speculation, not settled doctrine. It's a place where ideas can be hashed out without anyone feeling too committed to them. So anything posted in this forum should be understood as saying, "What about this? Might this work?"

That's how I'll be approaching it, anyway. :)

[Hans Deventer]

In my mind, this new forum is for speculation, not settled doctrine. It's a place where ideas can be hashed out without anyone feeling too committed to them. So anything posted in this forum should be understood as saying, "What about this? Might this work?"

You got it exactly right.

[Billy Cox]

In recent years, the general theology forum has turned into a battlefield rather than a discussion platform where we can actually learn from each other. I don't know what exactly the reason is, but I do know it didn't used to be that way, and I want back what we lost.

Hans, I appreciate the spirit of this forum and I look forward to open discussion of ideas that are more exploratory than settled.

It's inevitable that the battle will try to flare up in this forum. What do you intend to do to prevent that?

[Hans Deventer]

It's inevitable that the battle will try to flare up in this forum. What do you intend to do to prevent that?

For all I can see, I've done everything reasonable to prevent this. If needs be, options that do not appeal to reason may be used.

I'm a little more hopeful than to use the word "inevitable".

[Billy Cox]

For all I can see, I've done everything reasonable to prevent this. If needs be, options that do not appeal to reason may be used.

I'm a little more hopeful than to use the word "inevitable".

It's okay to be hopeful. :) I perceive that some approach the Theology forum as a venue to joust with Emergent heretics or proselytize those who aren't Calvinists yet, and this forum could appear to be an opportunity for warring with the cream of the heretic crop.

I'm hopeful too...that trolls and those uninterested in dialogue won't be allowed to steal the show. :)

[Mark Metcalfe]

I found this forum and introduction, but I still do not understand the need for a separate forum. Sometimes, NazNet feels like an arena where ideas are tested, which brings to mind a quote I like from Teddy Roosevelt.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” -- Theodore Roosevelt

I don't have any strong feelings about having (or not having) this forum separate from the General Theology, but I wondered if a "Progressive Current Events" forum also could be created for the speculation of left-leaning ideas to be hashed out without the inevitable challenges by those pesky right-leaning conservatives. (I'd bring the popcorn to lurk there.) Kind of feels that way to me.

Mark

[Hans Deventer]

I found this forum and introduction, but I still do not understand the need for a separate forum.

I do, Mark. And for me, it's already a blessing.

But let me give you an example: I like you but I'll never introduce the topic again that you and I know so well. If either of us did so continuously, we simply could not have any relationship whatsoever.

Well, it's very much the same here. Some folks simply cannot stand the kind of thinking this forum is about and will never stop letting us know. That serves no purpose at all. So, they won't do it here.

As to the CE forum, that's up for the guys there to decide. I've concluded for some time now that I'm not interested in conversations where the views share no common ground whatsoever. Not even with popcorn.

[Dale Cozby]

If non post-traditional people are not welcome to post negative thoughts in here that can be considered argumentative or a form of harassment, then where can they go where they can likewise post unharassed nor be dismissed by thier post-tradional bretheren?
If those who are not "post-tradition" but rather "traditional" the question then becomes where do they post where they will not be harassed by the post-traditional people. General theology is common ground and sort of where all sides can post as they please, and fight about it, but there is no where for traditional Nazarenes with an AHM/Wesleyan theology to post unharried by the post-traditonal people. Not a single thread in general isn't tainted by post-traditional arguments being espoused ad nauseum negating it as a safe place to discuss traditional Nazarene theology(including AHM )

Perhaps a fairer way to treat this is for those who are members of the Post-tradional forum and a Traditional forum to be mutually exclusive. Members should be able to post in only one of the two forums even if they can read both.
Thus we have Traditional, General, and Post-traditional forums. The battlefield then is only found in the General Theology and each side can discuss unharassed by the other in thier respective forums.

[Ryan Scott]

Perhaps a fairer way to treat this is for those who are members of the Post-tradional forum and a Traditional forum to be mutually exclusive. Members should be able to post in only one of the two forums even if they can read both.

It's been suggested before.

[Dale Cozby]

In recent years, the general theology forum has turned into a battlefield rather than a discussion platform where we can actually learn from each other.
Thus the post-tradional side has a sanctuary from the battlefield as it were but the other members have no safe place to discuss off the "battlefield."
Perhaps Naznet isn't as friendly a place for all Nazarenes to be as it seems to be dominated by non-Nazarene and post-traditional Nazarenes posters in both theology forums and no where for Traditional Nazarenes to post unharassed "off the battlefield."

[Cam Pence]

If non post-traditional people are not welcome to post negative thoughts in here that can be considered argumentative or a form of harassment, then where can they go where they can likewise post unharassed nor be dismissed by thier post-tradional bretheren?
If those who are not "post-tradition" but rather "traditional" the question then becomes where do they post where they will not be harassed by the post-traditional people. General theology is common ground and sort of where all sides can post as they please, and fight about it, but there is no where for traditional Nazarenes with an AHM/Wesleyan theology to post unharried by the post-traditonal people. Not a single thread in general isn't tainted by post-traditional arguments being espoused ad nauseum negating it as a safe place to discuss traditional Nazarene theology(including AHM )

Perhaps a fairer way to treat this is for those who are members of the Post-tradional forum and a Traditional forum to be mutually exclusive. Members should be able to post in only one of the two forums even if they can read both.
Thus we have Traditional, General, and Post-traditional forums. The battlefield then is only found in the General Theology and each side can discuss unharassed by the other in thier respective forums.

I have a feeling that no one would EVER post in the general theology forum were this to happen.

[Peggy Gray]

Mom used to make us go to our own rooms when we couldn't get along, too.

[Hans Deventer]

Thus we have Traditional, General, and Post-traditional forums. The battlefield then is only found in the General Theology and each side can discuss unharassed by the other in thier respective forums.

Dale, I would not be opposed to that division at all. If people would request such a forum, I'd be happy to set it up. Will have to check with the other mods but you have my vote. I fully understand.

[Gina Stevenson]

Mom used to make us go to our own rooms when we couldn't get along, too.

(then there were those times kids were to go to the same room, only coming out when differences were resolved. ;)) OK, now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Todd Erickson]

My observation is that it can be very difficult to get discussions going in the post theology area. If everybody thinks they agree, or that it's not something they feel comfortable commenting on, or what have you, the thread will die quickly, and that seems to happen quite often. The only threads that "live" are ones where there is some discussion arising from disagreement, it seems.

At some length, we might as well turn the forum into a collection of essays with no option to respond, since that's the effective direction of that choice.

[Paul DeBaufer]

I don't want to put words in Hans mouth or speak for him, but it seems that the intent here is not so much to do away with disagreement but to keep dismissiveness away. It is okay to disagree and provide a dissenting opinion. But to simply say "You are wrong and there is not other way to think about this..." is at the heart of the rules here. I think that there are many in the GT group who disagree with pretty much anything that we of the PTT group would put forth who are capable of doing so in a way that engages and doesn't just dismiss.

I would presume that a Traditional Theology forum would be similar.

[Rich Schmidt]

I don't want to put words in Hans mouth or speak for him, but it seems that the intent here is not so much to do away with disagreement but to keep dismissiveness away. It is okay to disagree and provide a dissenting opinion. But to simply say "You are wrong and there is not other way to think about this..." is at the heart of the rules here. I think that there are many in the GT group who disagree with pretty much anything that we of the PTT group would put forth who are capable of doing so in a way that engages and doesn't just dismiss.

I would presume that a Traditional Theology forum would be similar.

That fits with my impression/recollection of what got this forum started in the first place.

It's about attitude and approach to conversation as much as it is the content of the conversation.

[Dale Cozby]

Dale, I would not be opposed to that division at all. If people would request such a forum, I'd be happy to set it up. Will have to check with the other mods but you have my vote. I fully understand.Thanks Hans.
I think concepts and doctrines of AHM especially get dismissed easily, even though they form a part of the tradition of the CotN.
It would be nice to discuss the non-essentials as non-essentials but from a traditional CotN viewpoint.
Perhaps General could be renamed Essential Theology.

[Hans Deventer]

Thanks Hans.
I think concepts and doctrines of AHM especially get dismissed easily, even though they form a part of the tradition of the CotN.
It would be nice to discuss the non-essentials as non-essentials but from a traditional CotN viewpoint.
Perhaps General could be renamed Essential Theology.

You're still intending this as the "middle ground" between traditional and post traditional, Dale?

[Doug Ward]

Hans,

I think he wants the traditional to be the middle ground between post-traditional and the board he envisions.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Thus the post-tradional side has a sanctuary from the battlefield as it were but the other members have no safe place to discuss off the "battlefield."
Perhaps Naznet isn't as friendly a place for all Nazarenes to be as it seems to be dominated by non-Nazarene and post-traditional Nazarenes posters in both theology forums and no where for Traditional Nazarenes to post unharassed "off the battlefield."

I think you actually mean "unchallenged" when you say "unharassed." Not all challenges are harassment. They only feel that way. And as I often say in talking about Psalms, feelings are not reality, only perception from within a context.

BTW: The same is true about the perception that this is a "battlefield" divided into warring "sides" requiring a "sanctuary," as well as the notion that everyone who does not accept the AHM form of theology is "post-traditional." I know several very traditional Nazarene theologians who would find that characterization, shall we say, strange. Even Ken Grider began to modify his militant support for the AHM in his later years, and I doubt that would make him "post-traditional."

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.

[Hans Deventer]

BTW: The same is true about the perception that this is a "battlefield" divided into warring "sides" requiring a "sanctuary," as well as the notion that everyone who does not accept the AHM form of theology is "post-traditional." I know several very traditional Nazarene theologians who would find that characterization, shall we say, strange.

Dennis, I've struggled to find the proper words. And I'm very open to any improvement. What I meant was that this would be a place where one can discuss theology that might be different from what people are used to, without having to enter into the 897th instalment of a discussion that will never produce anything. So yes, this forum is off limits for the folks who cannot accept people who think differently, or consider themselves to be appointed by God to challenge any idea they think is contrary to their very own idea of orthodoxy.

[Dennis Bratcher]

Dennis, I've struggled to find the proper words. And I'm very open to any improvement. What I meant was that this would be a place where one can discuss theology that might be different from what people are used to, without having to enter into the 897th instalment of a discussion that will never produce anything. So yes, this forum is off limits for the folks who cannot accept people who think differently, or consider themselves to be appointed by God to challenge any idea they think is contrary to their very own idea of orthodoxy.

The problem is not that the words are wrong or lacking. The problem lies with those who react defensively, turn those words into accusations, challenges to ideas into battles, and seek to label people who do not share their personal views with pejorative terms. Of course, disagreements will occur in any public discourse especially over something as personal as religion. But the goal should be to engage differing ideas honestly without making different perspectives an us versus them battle or a truth versus heresy polarity.

For example, I have consistently pointed out the shortcomings and failures of the AHM, the problems with Palmer's altar theology, and the destructive influence of both on the C of N. I have pointed to historical evidence and scholarly research, as well as a long history of personal experience in the church, to support that conclusion. I have never seen any solid rebuttal of that evidence or that conclusion beyond appealing to the idea that it is part of the CofN's heritage along with a resounding "it's just what I believe." To suggest that the traditional proof-texting or logical syllogisms are inadequate responses is then taken as some kind of harassment as if the intent is solely to be a nuisance and an annoyance to others. That is simply not true.

Yet, I have never even hinted that those who do agree with the AHM's perspective are any less Christian, any less "orthodox," or any less committed to God. Being wrong (from my perspective) or uninformed does not eliminate one from relationship with God, as Wesley pointed out so well.

I think this forum is a good idea and serves a valid purpose. However, ideas should always be open to scrutiny and challenge. Not attack, which too often happens, but reasoned discussion in which all perspectives are honestly vetted without people becoming overly defensive and/or belligerent from any direction. If that goal requires close supervision and restriction, so be it, as long as the monitoring is not used to curtail honest discussion (we have good recent examples of that on other forums).

As far as having a limited forum for "traditional" views in which certain ideas are protected as sacred cows free from any challenge, I say if there is a need for that people can start their own web site. Again, we have abundant examples of that already. If a person wants to espouse certain views without challenge, this forum, or any genuinely public forum, is not the place for them. For that matter, neither is the General Theology forum. But then, the same guidelines of civility mentioned above are already in effect on that forum as well. So, I don't see any need to change the forums.

If those who are unhappy want to start their own forum or web site, or church, they are free to do so. They might even attract a following. But then, I would have to ask what purpose that would serve beyond, at best, maintaining personal comfort zones, and at worst creating a delusional sense that personal opinions dearly held are the final truth (again, several examples). Both are detrimental to Christian unity.

I'm idealistic enough to think that on an level playing field, the truth will emerge on top. While it would be nice to be the Searcher for truth, our own humanity suggests that perhaps a better task is to work hard at leveling the field.

Grace and Peace,

Dennis B.