WWMC Name Change Interest Poll and Discussion

[SnowyMacie]

If you are not a member of this faith group, please do not participate in the poll, however I do have some questions for you at the end.

@hedrick stated that the current membership here didn't choose the name, and I for one, while I agree with the principle behind the name, I think the name itself causes too much confusion among those not apart of our faith group. I wondered if perhaps we should have a discussion about the name of our subforum. If there is enough interest in changing the name, I am proposing we contact staff about our interest and if they are okay with it, we will come up with suggestions and then have a vote (or however faith groups get names)

For WWMC members, what do you think about our current name "Whoever will, may come?" Do you think it causes some confusion about who is able to post here? Do you think we should inquire about having our name changed?

For non-WWMC members, have you ever been confused at what the phrase "Whoever will, may come" in the context of this forum? If so you think we should have a more definite name?

 

[hedrick]

The actual title is "Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal." The problem isn't "liberal," although it's not my preferred term. The thing that causes the issue is the WWMC. Simply changing it to "liberal Christianity" would be fine. So would "progressive Christianity," which is probably somewhat more used these days. I'd like "mainline Christianity," but in fact liberal Christianity includes a lot of Catholic theology and Biblical scholarship, as well as the more liberal end of evangelical scholarship, so "mainline" is probably too narrow.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[hedrick]

Most SOF's include a specific list of denominations. That's challenging here, since even conservative denominatinos have liberal members. The group historically has also included people with conservative theology and liberal politics, as it was never clear whether it was for liberal politics or liberal theology.

But the lack of specific theological principles and a list of denominations is part of what leads people to think that there's no such thing as liberal Christianity. In fact there is sort of a list of denominations:
* mainline (see the list in Wikipedia)
* a lot of modern Catholic theology and Biblical scholarship
* the more liberal end of evangelicalism

There are also pretty clear theological principles, but I'm not sure how specific we should get. The simplest way to say it without getting too controversial is that it accepts critical Biblical scholarship and its implications for theology and practice.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I have to close this thread, unfortunately.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I would like to keep the thread open and discuss the name.

The name that is here was originally picked by the members when it started or the decision was to keep it back in 2007 when there were some major changes made, though they were later changed again.

I believe the concern is that the WWMC part seems to invite everyone to post even against Liberal Christianity. Is that the concern?

 

[hedrick]

Yes.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So what idea for names do you have?

 

[SnowyMacie]

I believe the concern is that the WWMC part seems to invite everyone to post even against Liberal Christianity. Is that the concern?

Yes

So what idea for names do you have?

"Progressive Christians" (remove WWMC and Liberal)
"Proud Heretics - Liberal Christians"

If I think of more, I'll suggest them.

 

[PloverWing]

Is it worth trying to clarify whether this subforum is for theological liberals or social/political liberals? Or is the ambiguity a good thing, welcoming both groups of people?

 

[MercyBurst]

Secular Theology Secular theology - Wikipedia
Liberal Christianity Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
Secular Christianity
Liberal Theology
Liberal

 

[hedrick]

I think the ambiguity between social and theological liberal is fine. We're just interested in avoiding people who interject condemnations into conversations where it's disruptive.

Probably "Progressive Christians" would be the best, given how most people use terms these days.

 

[SnowyMacie]

If that's what you really want then I suggest you look in these places:

Statement of Purpose - Whosoever Will, May Come - Statement of Purpose
"if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology."

The purpose of this sub-forum is not clear, for example there is no established theology. Perhaps it should state that this is not a debate forum... period.

There also appears to be a conflict between the site rules and this sub-forum's theology. I'll get the specifics.

CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums
"Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums."

Hence, technically speaking, this sub-forum appears to be non-Christian according to the site rules, and people need to know that before they come here. All the other faith forums fit clearly within the "Christian Only" definition, but there is no clarity on what this sub-forum believes, and it is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon:

Liberal Christianity - Wikipedia
"Unlike conservative varieties of Christianity, liberalism has no unified set of propositional beliefs."

Hence this sub-forum appears to be somewhat of an orphan -- if you can't say what it believes, then where do you put it? Perhaps the best rule is no theological debates ...period and make that real clear -- "safe-space" christianity as it were.

I'm not sure I see what you are saying, our SOP is quite clear that this is a Christian subforum, therefore to be apart you must confirm the incarnation of Jesus according to the rules of CF, otherwise it would not be called Liberal Christians. Our SOP lists three things that differentiate us from other Christians, most faith groups on here I've noticed don't list every single believe, especially things already talked about in the Nicene Creed, which is the definition of Christian according to site rules.
1) We believe that Jesus never shut out anyone based on age, race, gender identity, religious affiliation (or lack thereof), sexuality, or political views
2) We elieve that God has shown that we all "see through the glass darkly" (I Cor. 13). It is therefore impossible for any human to fully know God's will, and therefore have a monopoly on the truth. We believe the Bible to be a valuable resource, but not free from error.
3) We believe God is merciful and loving: When we judge God's children (whom we all are) we transgress against God's express command. When we who are finite judge others, we presume on an infinite God's throne, His mercy and justice. Such judgments go against our beliefs. Further, we believe it is contrary to the teachings of Christ to judge, or have an opinion, on the final destination of any soul or group of souls. Such decisions are solely up to the Lord, our God.

 

[PloverWing]

I'm starting to appreciate the problem more, as I read the posts in this discussion. I'm also remembering that, back in the days when I was a conservative Evangelical, I associated the word "liberal" with "we don't really believe anything" or "we have no moral standards" -- both of which are wrong, of course, but the SOP doesn't really clarify that for outsiders reading it.

Could we reasonably revise the SOP, for more clarity? Keep what's there, but add some more points. For example:

1) @hedrick has spoken about the importance our community places on scholarship and the insights of the Enlightenment. So, something about the value we place on scholarly study of the Bible (including higher criticism) and scholarly study of science (including evolutionary biology) and archaeology. hedrick, do you have a good concise wording for this?

2) Something about social justice and/or the social gospel, the idea that being a Christian involves caring for the poor and needy as though we were caring for Christ himself; and also that this can involve changing social structures, not just individuals. This is the socially/politically liberal side of things. (I don't think it is actually liberal in the sense of #1, because it's right there in the gospels, ahem. Stepping off my soapbox now.)

3) Are there other points that liberal/progressive/mainline Christians have in common, that we could add to a statement?


As a postscript, I'll add that I don't see the participants in this group as being far-left "liberal" in the sense that Bishop Spong is. I'd certainly welcome Bishop Spong in this group, but most of the participants here seem to affirm most/all of the Nicene Creed, the Incarnation, salvation through the work of Christ -- the orthodox basics. I see most of the participants in WWMC as being pretty theologically mainstream. It's just that, by CF standards, merely accepting higher criticism or the ordination of women and gay people places you on the way-far-left of CF, even if you do also accept the Nicene Creed.

So, with some reluctance (because I still do like the original forum name), I'd support changing the name from "Whosoever Will, May Come - Liberal" to "Progressive Christians".

 

[PloverWing]

Perhaps the best rule is no theological debates ...period and make that real clear -- "safe-space" christianity as it were.

As I mentioned above, I'm beginning to see how the SOP is insufficiently clear. And this forum, like all the Faith Groups forums, has the idea of being a safe space.

But I don't see it as a place for "no theological debates". I would like to see respectful theological debates and discussions in this forum -- just proceeding from a more mainline/liberal set of common assumptions.

 

[MercyBurst]

I'm confused. I didn't see anything about the divinity of Christ in the SOP. If any of these people came to CF, would they be considered liberal Christians that belong on this sub-forum?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: “You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,” she added. “What’s important is to worship together.”

Gene Robinson “To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene) Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience."

http://storage.cloversites.com/sitehostllc/documents/A Conflict of Beliefs formatted July28009.pdf

Katharine Jefferts Schori: In her opening address, the Presiding bishop declared personal and confessional faith in Jesus Christ a heresy, and described Jesus Christ's death on Calvary as merely "a waypoint" to God's "greater dream," and not the endpoint of salvation.

Does Truth Matter? | Worldview Weekend

 

[hedrick]

I'm starting to appreciate the problem more, as I read the posts in this discussion. I'm also remembering that, back in the days when I was a conservative Evangelical, I associated the word "liberal" with "we don't really believe anything" or "we have no moral standards" -- both of which are wrong, of course, but the SOP doesn't really clarify that for outsiders reading it.

That's why I suggested in my first contribution that it might be worth talking in the SOP about what liberal theology is. However my sense is that the participants in this group are primarily interested in excluding people who can't get along with other participants. For that it's not necessary to be very precise in the SOP.

If you really want to define liberal, you've got three different meanings:
* they don't think much of anything is important to believe or do
* they hold to theological and Biblical studies based on critical methodology
* they hold positions commonly identified as politically liberal.

We've had participants of all 3 kinds, and the other members of the group are probably fine with that. I noted in posting 4 that there are a set of denominations associated with liberal theology, and if you wanted an SOP that looks like other SOP's it would be possible to outline specific theological principles.

But the original concern here was really the name.

While there are certainly folks who are way out there, I agree with the poster above that the usual participants here are not.

Schori believes that God was made flesh and dwelled among us. I think that makes her a Christian. Whether CF considers her a Christian is beyond my scope. Of course Christ's death was a waypoint. Surely no Christian thinks it's the end. At the very least, without the resurrection it's incomplete, and the point of all of it is to bring us new life.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I'm confused. I didn't see anything about the divinity of Christ in the SOP. If any of these people came to CF, would they be considered liberal Christians that belong on this sub-forum?

I am confused too. I did not see anything in the SOP about members, who are not part of this particular faith group, allowed to come into this safe haven forum and preach against its theology.

Katharine Jefferts Schori: “You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,” she added. “What’s important is to worship together.”

Gene Robinson “To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene) Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience."

http://storage.cloversites.com/sitehostllc/documents/A Conflict of Beliefs formatted July28009.pdf

Katharine Jefferts Schori: In her opening address, the Presiding bishop declared personal and confessional faith in Jesus Christ a heresy, and described Jesus Christ's death on Calvary as merely "a waypoint" to God's "greater dream," and not the endpoint of salvation.

Does Truth Matter? | Worldview Weekend

And this post is a perfect example of why this forum's Statement of Purpose should be revised.

House Rules
All posts within this faith community must adhere to the site wide rules found here (Community Rules). In addition, if you are not a member of this faith group, you may not debate issues or teach against it's theology. You may post in fellowship. Active promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of this group will be considered off topic.

Statement of Purpose - Whosoever Will, May Come - Statement of Purpose

Congregational Forum Restrictions
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

 

[MercyBurst]

I'm not sure I see what you are saying, our SOP is quite clear that this is a Christian subforum, therefore to be apart you must confirm the incarnation of Jesus according to the rules of CF, otherwise it would not be called Liberal Christians.

The faith forums are not labeled "Christians Only", hence we can only assume the rules apply which say:

"Faith groups and individuals that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation whereby He, as God, took on human flesh (becoming fully God and fully man in one person), are considered non-Christians at CF. Posts that deny the full, eternal deity of Jesus Christ or His incarnation are considered non-Christian theology and are not allowed in "Christians Only" forums. Discussions in all "Christians Only" forums must be in alignment with Trinitarian beliefs."

CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums

The core issue here is what you believe about Christ and the authority of scripture. The issues are all covered in the split between the anglican church and the american episcopal church. There is no need to re-invent anything -- it's already been done.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I'm confused. I didn't see anything about the divinity of Christ in the SOP. If any of these people came to CF, would they be considered liberal Christians that belong on this sub-forum?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: “You don’t all have to profess exactly the same understandings of the central tenets of the faith,” she added. “What’s important is to worship together.”

Gene Robinson “To be expected to repeat these sentiments (The Nicene Creed), (V.Gene) Robinson decided, was an offense against conscience."

http://storage.cloversites.com/sitehostllc/documents/A Conflict of Beliefs formatted July28009.pdf

Katharine Jefferts Schori: In her opening address, the Presiding bishop declared personal and confessional faith in Jesus Christ a heresy, and described Jesus Christ's death on Calvary as merely "a waypoint" to God's "greater dream," and not the endpoint of salvation.

Does Truth Matter? | Worldview Weekend

It is a given that the forum needs to conform to the site Statement of Faith as as it is included in the Congregational area of CF. That means no posts can be made against the divinity of Christ or against the Trinity.

That is really not the issue here. The issue is that non-Liberal Christians feel welcome to come here and debate against this particular forum's beliefs because of the name. But that is not okay.