Is this rule being adhered to in this sub-forum?

[C.F.W. Walther]

1.4 Congregational Areas

"You may post in any of the Congregational Forums if you agree with the contents of the Nicene Creed and the Trinitarian nature of God, but you may not argue or debate with members of particular denominations and groups in their congregational areas unless you are a member of that particular denomination or group."

Do we just go on somebodies say-so that they adhere to this rule or do they demonstrate the violation of that rule by on going contradiction to the basic beliefs of the sub-forum and/or denomination?

Also is constant redundancy necessary to implementing someones opinion or should they be allowed to go on forever on the subject when it has been pointed out that they violated the spirit of the discussion and bring in errancies?

 

[pmcleanj]

I'm interested in the responses to this, too. As you know, I've done my best to interpret rule 1.4, in the main forum, to allow the kind of open debate that the members of TC-L have told me that they want and welcome.

Should the subforums have a more mainstream interpretation of rule 1.4? Most denominational forums do interpret that rule very strictly.

Also, there very well may be occasions where posters are simply communicating past each other, with perhaps no intent at disrespect, but with increasing frustration with each other -- a probability that increases, the less shared language and experience the different parties have. Is that more likely to happen in the subforums if non-members are allowed to discuss doctrine than in the main forum where there is more breadth of viewpoint? That might have a more restrictive interpretation of rule 1.4 in the subforums.

Or should members of the subforum have a mechanism whereby they can just blow the whistle and say, "Okay, out of the pool: you don't get it and explaining it yet again is going to be just too disruptive".

It would be nice to have a consensus of the members of this subforum, about how to handle such threads.

 

[Protoevangel]

The way I understood the very reason for the sub-forums, was so members belonging to that particular sub-forum could discuss issues without having to worry about the constant bombardment and harassment as has been recently been experienced.

Open discussion is and always has been encouraged in the main TCL forum, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But are the sub-forums no different than the main forum? If so, why even have them?

If an issue is brought up that one simply must debate about, nothing keeps that person from opening a thread in the main TCL area.

 

[Jim47]

My 2 cents

This forum was created as a safe haven just as the ELCA or liberal forum was created so they too could have a safe haven. As much as we all love to discuss and debate, I can see all the more clearly now that we do still need this safe haven. We still welcome debtaes and discussions in the main forum and I'm sure we always will. We consider this a part of witnessing and helping those who may not have the benefit of a conservative Lutheran upbringing (which would mean being in agreement with the conservative beliefs). As Dan has pointed out, if we don't follow these rules there is no point in having the forum. I think we still need it as a refuge from debating with others. I think I can say that we still welcome visitors who want to ask questions but refrain from debating. Kind of the same as you would do if visiting someones church. Good manners are always in order. If you don't agree with their teachings then you simply look for another church.

 

[LilLamb219]

I like what Jim wrote and agree with it wholeheartedly!

 

[LutherNut]

The type of nonsense that has been going on here would never be tolerated in the ELCA subforum. The ELCA moderators are very quick to hand out alerts and warnings to anyone who goes over there and voices a dissenting opinion on anything. This I know from personal experience.

 

[Jim47]

I would just like to add this thought. Sometimes it appears that someone is arguing with us, when they are actually seeking answers and don't understand the ones we ae giving them. Also this bible verse from Peter came to mind.


1Pe 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed:
1Pe 5:2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve;
1Pe 5:3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.
1Pe 5:4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
1Pe 5:5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."
1Pe 5:6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time.
1Pe 5:7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.
1Pe 5:8 Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.
1Pe 5:9 Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
1Pe 5:10 And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast.
1Pe 5:11 To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[LilLamb219]

Sometimes it appears that someone is arguing with us, when they are actually seeking answers and don't understand the ones we ae giving them.

Yes, but they should desire to hear the answers without repeatedly giving their own opinions back if they're truly interested in asking questions.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Well it looks like we have a concensus which is really unusual. Most of the time it's just a majority opinion, but this seems to be overwhelming.

Maybe Erwin take some of these comments and make a better judgement on what can be allowed in the sub forum here and have a stricter interpretation on the rule.

 

[pmcleanj]

Actually, I have a fair amount of discretion to interpret the "no debate" rule according to the standards of the community.

If I can paraphrase the consensus here, so I know what to say when moderating violators, it would be:

==============================
Lutherans tolerate a broad range of discussion within the scope of "building fellowship", provided that it does not involve direct disrespect of Lutheranism or Lutheran doctrine. That discussion should be restricted to the main TC-L forum; leaving the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC subforum as space for Lutherans who are in agreement with the more conservative Lutheran perspective to discuss their own issues among themselves.
==============================
Please correct my paraphrase if I have misrepresented the consensus.

Of course, I will still be relying on you all to send me a notice either by PM or by report in case I miss an incident.

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?

 

[Chemnitz]

Actually, I have a fair amount of discretion to interpret the "no debate" rule according to the standards of the community.

If I can paraphrase the consensus here, so I know what to say when moderating violators, it would be:

==============================
Lutherans tolerate a broad range of discussion within the scope of "building fellowship", provided that it does not involve direct disrespect of Lutheranism or Lutheran doctrine. That discussion should be restricted to the main TC-L forum; leaving the LCMS/WELS/ELS/LCC subforum as space for Lutherans who are in agreement with the more conservative Lutheran perspective to discuss their own issues among themselves.
==============================
Please correct my paraphrase if I have misrepresented the consensus.

That sounds fine to me.

Of course, I will still be relying on you all to send me a notice either by PM or by report in case I miss an incident.

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?

Membership in a congregation of one of the confessional Lutheran Churches?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

The qualifier could be the stickler. Even within our own synods we have fairly substatial differances and when we took a vote over a month ago to differentiate between confessional, moderates and liberals. Just within this forum we couldn't come to a concensus on dividing the forum up between the confessionals and the "what evers left".

The only thing we could possibley do is make sure that everyone that wants to use this as a haven is they should have, at least, the listing of "Lutheran" and then what church they belong to in their profile. Not much of a deterent but at least we can see their profile and before it gets out of hand we can qualify them according to that or at least see that they are trying to bait us if they are of another denom. Also we could point them to another denom thread and ask them to join in a discussion there or tell them to take there dissention to the main TC thread.

I'm not sure if we can change that part of our profile though.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

...............or have them use their secret decoder ring to get in

 

[Jim47]

One more point of clarification: I presume you would not choose to limit participation this forum by some strict qualifier, like confirmation. What is the benchmark by which to decide that someone "belongs" enough to be allowed to debate?

I agree with what Radidio said. A membership in a conservative Lutheran church should be required.

 

[Chemnitz]

I agree with what Radidio said. A membership in a conservative Lutheran church should be required.

Did my name change?

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

We said the same thing at exactly the same time. I posted mine central time and you must have posted yours eastern CHemnitz

 

[pmcleanj]

Okay, treat me like I'm dense. I am Anglican, you know .

If I understand your praxis correctly, then "membership" is a distinct traceable act for you, right? As in, one can be a "member in Christ" through Baptism, but one still has to "join" a particular congregation through some intentional act in order to be a "member of the Church" (or church)?

You can't kind of accidentally and gradually drift in to being a "member" by just attending for a decade or so?

 

[Protoevangel]

I think the rule should be open to a certain amount of interpretation, depending on the nature of the debate. I, for one, would find it much more acceptable to have a Presby in here debating a lesser issue, than to have someone who may "officially" belong to a conservative Lutheran congregation, promoting Works Salvation, or denying the Chief Article. I suppose then, it comes down to who hits the report button, and when.

 

[C.F.W. Walther]

Okay, treat me like I'm dense. I am Anglican, you know .

If I understand your praxis correctly, then "membership" is a distinct traceable act for you, right? As in, one can be a "member in Christ" through Baptism, but one still has to "join" a particular congregation through some intentional act in order to be a "member of the Church" (or church)?

You can't kind of accidentally and gradually drift in to being a "member" by just attending for a decade or so?

Ok lets not get it too complicated. First prereq. You have a denom listed in your profile and also have you particular chuch listed. If you had come in here and argued just for the sake of arguing and not clarification and had been redundant about it then as Dan said (Second prereq) then we would hit the report button.

As someone mentioned before that in their subforum the perp would have been reported and kicked out a lot earlier that what happend here. These guys in here are too nice. I'm not.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I note that some in this discussion have an icon that just says "Lutheran" (as does mine). Some have added the name of their congregation. Some have added the denomination to which their congregation belongs.

But, does that mean that everyone in the LCMS, WELS and ELS groups agree with each other in all things? Could someone still be considered a part of those groups and disagree with another person in one of those groups about something? Will that be accepted? OR is this subforum only for the purpose of agreeing with each other and disagreements and/or discussions about varient opinions will not be permitted? Perhaps that needs to be decided and clarified...