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

[CaDan]

I hate this poll.

 

[CaDan]

Erwin, you've stacked the decks already. Your descriptions are loaded in favour of one option, straight off the bat.

Further, there's middle ground to be had, and you know it. Neither of those options are hugely palatable. Why are you still fostering an "us" and "them" dynamic?

It's possible to be a Christian Forum and have outreach. In fact, if there isn't outreach, it's not Christian. Your premise implies it has to be one or the other. That's incorrect.

Yes. Neither the thesis nor the antithesis, but rather the synthesis. Further, the synthesis cannot be rushed.

 

[DedicatedLittleFaith]

LOL! Made me snort!

a name like CHRISTIAN forum is FOR Christians. IF Erwin wants to have a 'non christian' section...people should be free to go to that area and discuss anything they like..evangelize reach out. I am all for that. BUT I do believe that Christians should have a safe place to discuss things as well. Why can't people that have the incessant need to debate/evangelize etc. simply GO to those threads?? Nothing difficult about it really!

you calling this place a ghetto? I am not sure what you are getting at here.

What he means is that seperating Christians and non Christians on this forum is discriminatory.

A lot of people are making this A LOT more difficult than it needs to be.

 

[Miracle Storm]

Option 2

 

[meh]

2, although I don't think it has to be as either/or as the options maybe presented.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Jesus never fellowshipped with the downtrodden, leftovers, and non-believers. Jesus never tried to reach out to anyone who wasn't christian, He instead made sure that those who weren't like Him were kept a safe distance away in their own little ghettos; voted option 2.

Not once ever seen you communicate in a way that isn't all sarcasm and vitriol.

That's hardly reaching out now, is it.

Some people feel this should solely be a fellowship forum. It doesn't mean they don't care about non-believers, so it's about time you stop judging them.

Again, Erwin, there's middle ground to be had. You've polarized options, making both all or nothing. There are degrees of change, and nuances to look at.

If this poll was another knee-jerk reaction, take some time to actually work it out, because the best solution isn't listed as an option.

 

[CaDan]

What he means is that seperating Christians and non Christians on this forum is discriminatory.

A lot of people are making this A LOT more difficult than it needs to be.

Draw Leviathan from the depths with a hook. Make the dead bones dance. Maybe then you will be competent to separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[CaDan]

Not once ever seen you communicate in a way that isn't all sarcasm and vitriol.

That's hardly reaching out now, is it.

Some people feel this should solely be a fellowship forum. It doesn't mean they don't care about non-believers, so it's about time you stop judging them.

Again, Erwin, there's middle ground to be had. You've polarized options, making both all or nothing. There are degrees of change, and nuances to look at.

If this poll was another knee-jerk reaction, take some time to actually work it out, because the best solution isn't listed as an option.

Wonder Twin powers . . . .

ACTIVATE!

 

[Angeldove97]

First off: I love my non-Christians friends here. I will never deny them a spot next to me and I welcome the chance to fellowship with them.

I choose option 2 though because this is a Christian site---I want Christian beliefs stated here, like they have been since the day I joined. But I want fellowship with non-believers as well.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's possible to be a Christian Forum and have outreach. In fact, if there isn't outreach, it's not Christian. Your premise implies it has to be one or the other. That's incorrect.

Option 2 allows for the outreach and agreed it wouldnt be a ministry without outreach , but the name of CF's subtitle defines an emphasis on uniting believers basically stating its first priority is to minister and allow safe places for christians to share with one another - if you notice it says outreach also but secondary to the main goal , the way the site has been for years before this wiki reform.

I voted for option 2.

 

[Melethiel]

Where's the "Other" option?

 

[GreenMunchkin]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[GreenMunchkin]

[/color]Option 2 allows for the outreach and agreed it wouldnt be a ministry without outreach , but the name of CF's subtitle defines an emphasis on uniting believers basically stating its first priority is to minister and allow safe places for christians to share with one another - if you notice it says outreach also but secondary to the main goal , the way the site has been for years before this wiki reform.

I voted for option 2.

Hmm... option 2 was blackmail. A threat to have it return to exactly what it was when the place was unwelcoming to non-Christians, and all locked up in rules and regulations.

That's another reason this poll is fundamentally flawed.

 

[CaDan]

Where's the "Other" option?

Not here.

 

[Tonks]

Here are my general thoughts on the matter...

Two years ago it was the delightful Catholic / Protestant war. This year it seemed to be more of the Conservative / Liberal war comprised of current/former staff. All very entertaining and time consuming.

I think, however, that the poll is missing an option or two. In many respects some of the changes have been good and some of the changes have been bad.

It has been rather eye-opening having some of the previous "open to all" sections move into Theology which was a closed, Christians Only section. In large part, the "non Christians" have acted much better than the "Christians" as defined by the Nicene Creed.

This new stuff, however, is a bit of a mess...

I almost miss the land of dueling petitions as it was more of a parochial time...after the changes, however, I've found it somewhat odd that those on both sides of the aisle have found a bit of common ground.

I suppose I don't have a grander "vision" for CF other than this which I posted in one of the alternative petitions of May 07:

In any given month CF entertains tens of thousands of registered users and visitors all seeking something which your website provides. These people are the young in Christ, the old in Christ, the people seeking Christ.... For them - particularly for them - CF serves as an outpost on the net where Christians can come to fellowship, to debate, to learn, to share, and to be protected from the wider world which views them as "Christian" like they are some sort of morbid fascination...
...The mix of what is "right or wrong" has distracted and concealed the true mission of CF. Those with loud voices speak of abandonment, despair, negligence, a hollow existence...all of which completely disregard the true, and increasingly successful, mission of CF. As a body of believers we are protected from those who oppose the beliefs which we hold true.

Or, as the Pope said during Holy Week:

Let us pray for help that we not hold back our lives for ourselves, but to give them to Him and so work together with Him, that men might find life – the true life that can come only from He who, Himself, is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

I've seen the frustration of staff trying to deal with reports that have no real consequences...the funny thing is that if one looks at the current open reports forums and the old reports forums it is the same folks reporting the same folks. 99% of membership spends their time walking in the light of Christ and understand that fellowship does not mean agreement but at, a basic level, involves respect for our Christian brothers and sisters.

The bottom line, I think, is that I wanted to spend time on a website which merely parroted my own views / theology I'd hang out on Catholic Answers or Fisheaters. While I do not always agree with my brothers and sisters - as there are large chasms within Christianity - I've always appreciated the ability to learn from those that I know little about.
Now that we've all played tribal, had our own forums created, and are "staisfied" at our opportunities for fellowship let us remove ourselves from the rulemaking and and return to the original vision.

 

[NewMan99]

This site at the moment is at a cross-roads, and can go either way. It can either become:

I already have a major problem with this (sorry Erwin).

Why are we putting things in an either/or context when there is no reason why CF cannot be BOTH "safe" (however that is defined) and an outreach at the same time? This either/or approach is baffling to me.

1. A safe social community site with a heavy and strong Christian influence (with the vision being to offer a safe online community, and a secondary vision being to allow Christians to outreach to non-Christians) - which will allow for a name change;

Define "safe."

To me, as a Christian, it would mean that we would be protective of tender seedlings new in their faith and protect them from being evangelized away from the gospel. That should be the primary sense of "safety" here. However, in a secondary (and also important) sense, non-Christians and non-orthodox Christians should be made to feel welcome and not treated as second-class citizens and "fair game" by ill-behaving Christians. They, too, should be made to feel "safe" - even if we do not allow for non-Christian proslytizing.

OR

2. Return to a more restricted Christians-only site with a heavy emphasis on uniting mainstream Christians only with a less emphasis on outreach, in which case we keep the name.

Christians only? Heaven forbid! We have been called to the Great Commission. There is no reason why we cannot welcome non-Christians to fellowship with us and enter into respectful dialog. Where we need to draw the line, though, is in pretending that there is no such thing as Divinely Revealed objective Truth that we are all bound to (at least those of us who are aware of it are bound to it). The idea that a "non-Nicene" Christian is just another flavor of Christianity is poppycock - and we should never pretend otherwise.

So yes - just as we invite ALL people into our respective churches...so too CF should welcome all people into its cyber doors. However, once one enters inside, there should be no doubt as to what the gospel message is...just like in our respective (Christian) churches.

Bear in mind that options 1 and 2 are both valid - there is a place for either forums.

If they are both valid - then WHY should it be an either/or and not a both/and???

I think that at this moment members are frustrated because CF is halfway between options 1 and 2, so members are confused as we have a vision that belongs to option 2 but a setup that is more like option 1.

We are not confused. CF is confused. CF is confusing outreach with political correctness. This is idealism (a good thing) without realism (realism is also a good thing when it is kept in mind).

I will listen to the members here, and will defer to the final decision.

Well...I hope this works better than the wiki fiasco. Again CF is being decided based on mob rule instead of the leadership making reasonable, fair, and benevolent decisions.

 

[Angel4Truth]

But I want fellowship with non-believers as well.

This is easily rectified by adding a fellowship forum stickied in each forum.

Not yanking icons can be done away with also but the site needs its congregational forums for believers to be only for believers unless open is added. Outreach is needed yes but ministry from believers to believers is also needed without interferance and debate from those outside of the church.

 

[CaDan]

Abstain.

 

[DedicatedLittleFaith]

Erwin,

I think you need a hug, so here ya go.

I am sure these have been very difficult times for you, with everyone jumping down your throat with their different perspectives and points of view. Not to mention to MASSIVE exiodus of many long time members and staff due to the recent changes. I know this had to have some impact on you. Here, have another hug!

Judging by this thread alone, I think at this point Option 2 is winning. But, if the negative responses are still troubling you, then I think you need to remember this:

Jesus Himself was EXTREMELY FIRM on what He meant. He never hesitated to call a phoney a phoney,,, and yet no one ever accuses him of being discriminatory towards someone do they? He preached the Gospel, and stood by it. To put it bluntly, His message was: "This is the Word of God. Take it or leave it" He also instructed his disciples to leave whatever house would not listen to them and shake the dusts off their feet.

The point here is that, bottom line, our opinions really should not matter. This is YOUR website. Hence YOU should take it in any direction that YOU see fit. The real issue here is the name: Christians are unhappy with the changes because they do not reflect what the name stands for. So what you need to do is think long and hard as to what message you want your website to promote. And go from there.

Anybody who is unhappy can just pick up and leave.

In the end, this is YOUR site. Never loose track of that .

My prayers and support are with you in these very difficult times.

 

[FriendsFellowship]

Abstain.

Abstain and you may loose your only ability to have a direct say in the direction of this site.