At Crossroads -- Cf's Vision - Poll Vote only here

[KerrMetric]

The Nicene Creed as an absolute standard of who is considered a Christian.

No it is not. It is your absolute standard perhaps BUT not some universal standard.

 

[morningstar2651]

I have an idea.

Two teams, a ministry team and a moderation team.

 

[intricatic]

You really can only speak for yourself. Denominational thinking works as a whole when voting. Its desiring power for one's denominational bias. It was more than apparent to many Protestants who needed to form a separate blog to discuss the abuses that came their way from Ecumenical thinking. You appear by what is shown in your profile to be quite young in the Lord. Some here we were finding abusive where actively in positions of power in their particular denomination, or working towards that goal.

No, I can speak for myself, and a good majority of the staff members who left with me, who I know fairly well. But they can also speak for themselves; I'm sure it'll sound a lot like what I'm saying, with obvious differences in the specifics.

I'm not sure what you're going on about with this blog, or what other specifics in your post are in reference to, so I'll simply elect to answer this portion.

 

[Brimshack]

I have an idea.

Two teams, a ministry team and a moderation team.

Actually, I think that is a rather good idea. Of course non-Christian mods aren't going to lead people to Christ, etc. But they can moderate a forum, particularly the open debate forums (which were chronically understaffed as I understand it). Perhaps the question is less whether or not non-Christians can do the job than whether or not there are two different jobs to be done.

 

[Rochir]

The fact is, CF is more divided, Christian-wise, than ever before. Aside from the fact the congregational fora are split further, rules have gone up that virtually preclude inter-denominational fellowship. So if that's what we're going on, this new CF has failed spectacularly.

And look at WHO has erected these new barriers? Non-Christians? Unorthodox Christians?

YES!

The liberal Christian forum is about the ONLY one which is trying to keep its doors open!

So who exactly is dividing CF?

 

[JonMiller]

I am hoping a middle ground can be found. I don't think it would be very nice to kick our atheist/agnostic/seeking members out

JM

 

[Rochir]

I have an idea.

Two teams, a ministry team and a moderation team.

GREAT idea!

 

[FriendsFellowship]

And look at WHO has erected these new barriers? Non-Christians? Unorthodox Christians?

YES!

The liberal Christian forum is about the ONLY one which is trying to keep its doors open!

So who exactly is dividing CF?

Aha! I have the answer! CF should be a liberal Christian only site!

 

[D'Ann]

I agree. There always need to be Christian moderators available to help the members here who want to talk about faith-related issues. But someone still needs to address the reports while they're doing that! In a way, non-Christian moderators can facilitate the ministry of CF by freeing up the Christian moderators to spend time talking to those who are struggling with their faith.

Sparklecat, I truly believe that you and Ravenscape(sp?) are excellent moderators from what I have read.

But even in reports, there will be a need to reach out to a non-Christian via pms and give them words of hope, faith and love in Christ.

I do believe though that there should be a type of ministry that should include non-Christians because we all want to give back to our communities here. I don't want to exclude anyone.

 

[KerrMetric]

I am hoping a middle ground can be found. I don't think it would be very nice to kick our atheist/agnostic/seeking members out

JM

Exactly. Because who is next?

You're SDA. Well I know a lot of "mainstream Christians" who would say you are not a Christian"

Calvinists? Heretics to many.

Charismatics?

Messianics? Fake Jews.

etc etc etc.

 

[JolieHeart]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Change is inevitable. Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

 

[KerrMetric]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

Tremendous post.

 

[trunks2k]

There can be enough rules in place to keep Christians "safe" and enough wiggle room to allow for discussion of other beliefs as well. People come here primarily to discuss Christan themes, debate things, and talk to people who share their beliefs. Expanding the site to allow for things like non-Christian mods and more open communication does nothing to change that. Really, the only difference I see here, in the "new cf" are all the threads [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing about change

I agree. Maybe it's because I stick mainly to the old all-members area, but since the big change, I haven't noticed any real change in the site outside of a few forum name changes and opening mods up to non-christians. Not necessarily a bad thing, moderation and such was ok before the change; at least much better than it used to be. I think a lot of the complaining is over nothing.

That said, I don't like either option. If I had to chose one, I'd go with the first one, but I think a name change is silly.

 

[LilLamb219]

The unsaved coming to your church will not make any of the congregations bylaws, nor try to edit out any of God's commandments. They probably won't be able to become any type of head of the church either...or at least, they shouldn't.

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

 

[kimber1]

Yes, basically:

Option one: New CF with (possible...I think) name/mission change
Option two: Old CF.with no name/mission change

G-d bless,
sc

well what a bunch of crap.........

well, i've pm'd erwin asking him for some middleground because neither option here is going to work and won't vote for somehting i can't in good conscious uphold.

 

[KerrMetric]

The unsaved coming to your church will not make any of the congregations bylaws, nor try to edit out any of God's commandments. They probably won't be able to become any type of head of the church either...or at least, they shouldn't.

Which was not happening here by the way.

 

[ChrissieXD]

Option Two. The site is unique when it offers Christian only sections. It's a good refuge, and it gives this forum something special about it. I sought it out for the one reason that it was Christian.

 

[FriendsFellowship]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

That's true, but the Church has it's position in Christianity well defined. The unsaved person will undoubtedly have to agree with the rules of the congregation before being considered a member. A lot of us are saying that the minimum tenants of Christianity should be defined at CF. Otherwise the unsaved person who comes in will wind up going whichever direction the wind is blowing!

 

[GreenMunchkin]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

Hiya

I honestly don't think it's fear or pride. Most people want a mixture of the two options, as both are unnecessarily extreme.

Many people are fellowshipping less now than before; some are fellowshipping more. We need to build a CF where everyone wins.

 

[Hentenza]

If unsaved people make their way to my church on Sunday morn, the church is not going to change its name. The Christians within will no doubt reach out to the visitors, welcome them in, fellowship, answer questions, etc. No need to change the name when all they are doing is being Christians and doing what God instructs Christians to do. Love one another.

I vote Option 1 without the name change.

My question to you all: What are you afraid of?
Your little sanctuary was not defiled. Visitors come and go, and yes there may be a 'problem child' occasionally cross the threshhold. It's a threshhold of membership that some of you consider sacred, but that *God* does not.

Love one another. Sit with those tax collectors as Jesus did.

The problem isn't with the site or its vision. It is the pride and fear of the members.

Have a blessed day.

Hi JolieHeart,

Good post. I do not want the name change either and don't want to exclude anyone but one of the problems that I have is not knowing who I am really talking to. Changing the faith icon at will is confusing. I have already seen unbelievers using a believer icon and suspect several others. That is a problem to me.