So what's this forum about?

[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.