Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Christians duke it out online
Check out this USA Today article on bitter and contentious Christian blogs.
[Southern Baptist leader Frank] Page fretted in a Baptist Press column that battling bloggers frighten off “lost souls and new believers.” He wrote, “Lost people are seeing the deep division and sometimes hatred that is flowing forth among churches and among those who are involved in convention discussions. For Christ’s sake, stop!”
A friend of mine sent me this article saying other faith blogs could take a lesson in civility from us. Is there anyone new here who can comment on their experiences on other faith blogs?
Topic: Religion, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top62 Comments to “Christians duke it out online”
Doctrinal differences are inevitable and unresolvable.
There are as many gods as there are believers.
Your god is different from your neighbor’s, your spouse’s and your pastor’s.
I suspect that the reason Mr Page is upset is because the net threatens a) to permit anyone to challenge the monopoly of the priesthood over doctrine and b) to reveal the truth of the statements above.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Page wasn’t saying Christians shouldn’t debate doctrine. He was saying that bitter and contentious Christian bloggers are a bad witness for unbelievers.
Report comment to moderator
As usual, USA Today’s coverage leaves a lot to be desired. I can’t believe I read one of their articles and I’m not at a hotel.
It is troublesome to see the vehemence which goes hand-in-hand with online discussion of doctrine. Just as with politics, sports, or anything that arouses passionate postions in people, theology discussions will always be infused with emotion. However, ad hominem attacks and general incivility have no place within the Church, even when you’re talking to someone whose salvation you would question. Meekness isn’t reserved for people you like.
Report comment to moderator
The nastiness of Christians in some way validats their beliefs. It is our belief that we are sinners in desperate need of a Savior, and sadly our sinfulness shows all too often. I am always amused when non-Christians accuse us of hypocrisy. There wouldn’t even be a concept of hypocrisy without an inherent moral sense, which also confirms Christian doctrine.
Report comment to moderator
I went to a site called beliefnet(dot)com, once.
There were threads that were chock-full of nuts, on there. So, I decided to start a topic on a new thread.
I came back, and to my surprise, my new topic had been moved to a thread full of atheists, wiccans, and militant anti-Christians of other faiths.
I was being attacked for using a Bible quote in my question. I slapped them around for a while, but there was just too many of them.
The last straw was when some idiot chimes in and says “Oy Vey!, another goy Bible-nut.
Well, after I straghtened him out on what the word “goy” meant, and that he was every bit the “goy” that I was, I fired off a nasty e mail(even by my standards) to the site hosts. I told them that I hope they enjoy their little feel-good hodge-podge of a faith orgy they had going on there, and that I am one Christian they won’t have to worry about distubing their little party, any more.
Then I actually told them that I was going to delete any cookies, e-mail, and any other information that looks like it came from them.
You guys are great compared to most “religious” themed sites I’ve been
Report comment to moderator
As a non-Christian, I stay out of the intra-religious squabbles. I rarely comment on in-house matters (baptism, the trinity, etc.) because I don’t have “a dog in that hunt” as they say.
I’ve seen some pretty nasty arguments over religion. But then, I’ve seen some pretty nasty arguments on non-religious sites like too.
I only hope that WorldMag can avoid all that. So far, so good.
Report comment to moderator
I’d also like toposit that there is a difference between being “meek”, as we understand the word, and being humble, which is what that word means in this quote.
“Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth”
I don’t believe for a second that God wants us to walk around with a “kick me” sign on our backs. And then thank the kicker for kicking us.
He wants champions that will take his word forward. Not some weak little fragile flower that wilts when the heat gets turned up a little.
You can be strong, persistant..and humble.
Report comment to moderator
Meaner, you’re right on. I guess I should’ve fleshed out what I meant a bit better. Suffice to say we’re shouldn’t give up ground in the interest of keeping the peace. But we can still approach discussions with a humility that leaves our opponents unable to criticize us even if they can’t stand our beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
They’re just being typical Baptists. Billy Grahams once said that if you put 2 Baptists in a room together you’ll generally have 3 different opinions.
Baptist are a contentious bunch. They just have a new forum to be contentious in.
Personally I which Christians in general would be a little more discreet in airing out their laundry on the public airways, but human nature being what it is (fallen) sometimes discretion is waived in favor of a good old fashioned donneybrook for an odd sense of personal gratification.
The early church had its share of contention. There just wasn’t the means of communication to make it global instantaneously.
We must learn to be good stewards of the gift of the airwaves.
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A and Mr_Meaner
You both make excellent points. This site is much more controlled, then many other blogs.
I have visited lots of blogs, but rarely stay after checking out the agenda. It doesn’t take to long to see that the primary goal, is to be as controversial as possible, EVEN to insert some of their own monitors into the mix, with ‘monikers’ which no one knows. In this way, the blog looks busier than it really is, with extra venom thrown in to start the ‘free for all’ –
MM your problems of having your thread moved, is a constant on blogs. Most likely the reason they moved your thread was to get the ‘fight’ going, which they did. They often times do this for attention, so that their blog will be busy and interesting. To the ’site ruler’ it’s the old idea of watching a fire, and that’s all they are interested in, as the CROWD GATHERS to watch, or throw a little wood on the fire.
There will always be those who don’t agree, or who have doctrinally different beliefs…………..BUT, most blogs which are Christ centered would do well to ‘throw off’ those who constantly cause trouble, bringing whatever belief in, throwing any and all garbage out to see how a ‘new fight’ can begin, the ‘gaming counterfeit’ –
There are instances where people have come here to bring what they KNOW will be a huge uproar, regarding very IMPORTANT parts of doctrine, which almost every single Believer will agree on. HOWEVER, they start out slow and easy, but before long the ‘agenda’ is very obvious, HERESY is right up front with lights flashing. The name of that game for the poster, is to DETRACT from the Word of God, by bringing in a gospel which is so outrageous, it takes time away from other more fruitful discussions.
The atheist, agnostic, cultist is one thing, the ‘ gaming counterfeit’ is another. Once you ’spot’ them, its best to ignore whatever they post, since they are here only to DETRACT from the Gospel, pretending to be Believers -
Report comment to moderator
I have found this site to be the most civil of those I frequented when I started playing on religious themed sites (2001 or so) – and most tolerant of intra-Christian differences as well as non-Christian (even anti-Christian) participants.
Perfect? No. But better than the others I tried. I haven’t sampled many others of late.
Report comment to moderator
I’m a member of several Christian Yahoo Group sites, and they are all civil. I believe they only accept Christians.
Report comment to moderator
I gotta say, most of the Christian blogs I’ve been too have been so civilized as to be boring. Or, if they’re having a real tiff (someone mentioned the whole FV thing yesterday), the posts get so long and detailed that my ADD brain wanders. Also boring. This is particularly true of Reformed folks (including me), who are pretty sure they have asked and answered all of the questions already and have no shortage of words to prove it.
Southern Baptists have been fighting each other openly for a generation. Nothing to see there. Ditto, Episcopalians.
As for WoW, this is really not a “Christian blog.” It’s a conservative political blog run by Christians.
Theology is complicated. It should be written carefully and read slowly. It isn’t really possible to blog while “being still and knowing.”
Report comment to moderator
They’re just being typical Baptists. Baptists can be a contentious bunch. At a School of Evangelism I attended, Billy Graham stated that if you put two Baptists in a room, you’d generally have three different opinions.
The church of Jesus Christ has always had contention. That’s why all those Epistles were written and all of those Creeds had to be hammered out.
In the past there wasn’t the vehicle to make contention known worldwide at the click of a button. Now you have the internet to contend with and dirty laundry is aired all the time.
Christians should be more discreet in their use of the airwaves to address and settle differences. Just like a mom and dad should settle their problems behind closed doors so as not to burden the children with “adult” stuff, Christians should be better stewards of the gift of electronic communication.
Report comment to moderator
#1 Comment about the monopoly of the priesthood with respect to Mr. Page has no meaning WRT Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist have no priesthood, and Mr. Page only has authority to appoint committees. It is a position of leadership and influence, not power.
I am afraid some are vying for power, but that’s another story.
Report comment to moderator
Stubob – 12
You make this statement: “As for WoW, this is really not a “Christian blog.” It’s a conservative political blog run by Christians.”
Yes, unfortunately you are right -
Report comment to moderator
Stubob,
I believe it could be more balanced, as to topics. However the political topics are to often more plentiful, and the doctrinal topics are scarce -
Report comment to moderator
In some sense, there is no difference between a “Christian thing” and a “thing run by Christians”.
Your statement would be more correct if you said “WoW is not a theology [or hermeneutics or some other distinctly Christian topic] blog”, but to say it is not a Christian blog, while admitting that it is run by Christians, implies that there are spheres where, if Christians go, they really aren’t Christians there.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know why it would be “unfortunate” that this is a conservative blog run by Christians. I rather like it, and I’m a liberal non-Christian.
With Lynn at the helm, this is a pretty civil place, which is what most of us like about WoW.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria: Yes, unfortunately you are right
Why is that unfortunate? We are what we are — an extension of a news and politics magazine. It would be different if this blog were an extension of, say, Discipleship Journal but talked politics all the time. But we’re talking about the same stuff we cover in the print mag — news, politics, culture, and current events from a Christian perspective. Called it . . . “applied theology.”
Report comment to moderator
Lynn
Obviously you can do whatever you want with the blog, you are the Editor. World Magazine is not the blog, the blog is an extension of the Mag, but the very fact that people interact, the interest they may or may not show, when interacting tells the story, and it also says a lot about quality.
Some of the threads which are started are duplicates, and it happens often….or they are so closely alike, it becomes old.
If I could give a suggestion: I would start fewer threads, making more on doctrinal issues, and cutting some of the political threads down. As everyone knows even the ‘debates’ have become boring, and many don’t even watch!
Report comment to moderator
Lynn,
a fascinating set of discussion you have started. I sense a degree of introspection on the role of WMB staff going on here.
For what it worth, I suggest that you can be commended for the following:
1) greatly improving the civility of this blog over the last year
2) adding a degree of creativity to the discussion such as Harrison’s discussion on marriage
3) you are attracting a more and more diverse set of view points
Given the objectives of blogs in general and what I observe has appeared to be your intent in overseeing this blog, it would seem that you have been outstandingly successful.
My congratulations!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
It depends on what you mean by “doctrine”. If you’re looking for a place for a nuts-and-bolts discussion of the sacraments or the role of women in the Church, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree. But if a politician is refused Communion by his local parish priest, or a denomination goes to a vote over the ordination of a woman for some role, that’s an appropriate introduction of the topic for discussion because it still fits World’s role as a news and editorial magazine.
Like it or not, plenty of non-Christians frequent this site, and for some we may be the only Christians that they interact with frequently. So if we’re sending the message that they should take their ball and go home because we’re talking about Christian stuff, I daresay that’s not very Christ-like. The political discussion (debates, chair-throwing matches, whatever) are often what draws in people who’ve never heard of World before, but how we dialogue with them determines whether or not they stay.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Good comments – I agree!
*****
RobHays,
I always appreciate your measured responses.
I’ve been around her awhile now (I can’t even recall when I started – yikes!), and it seems there have always been a small number of folk who don’t like the fact that WorldMag welcomes both Christians and non-Christians. I have always appreciated that the editors have not backed down on keeping the site open to all (as long as they follow the rules).
I’ve never understood the concept of having a blogsite where only those who agree are present. I find it particularly boring on liberal blogsites, where everyone speaks the same language. It’s an echo chamber. I much prefer interacting with people who don’t think like I do. I think it’s a good thing for everyone to be exposed to ideas and views that challenge their own.
Finally, I don’t know how WorldMag would determine who is a Christian and who isn’t. That would be a very difficult, if not impossible task.
Report comment to moderator
I can understand both sides, here.
Yes, this is a issue-oriented site. And I like it that way.
I also understand Victoria’s dilemma.
It is almost impossible to find a place where you can have open discussion on matters of doctrine.
OTOH, the reason I find it difficult to find such places is that most are so entrenched with a particular view, as are the readers, that there is no room for dissent. That’s pretty much an echo chamber, and nothing new will be learned in most of those places.
I’ll second Victoria’s request for an occasional theology thread.
I think we could do it, and remain “civil”.
(I’m going to have to find a thesaurus…that word is starting to drive me insane)
Report comment to moderator
Victoria – Is someone twisting your arm to be here?
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Meaner,
I would certainly have no problem with a blog on doctrine/theology. In fact, I would welcome it, even if I wouldn’t participate. It’s obviously important to people.
I’ve expressed my “vision” to Lynn of a regular blog for several topics, including sports, music, popular culture, and a few others. I would add doctrine/theology to that list. I think all of them would bring in more people and a more diverse crowd, especially younger people.
However, I think WoW is still working on the new site (it’s only been up for 2 months, let’s not forget), and their plate is still full. I know that Lynn and her fellow editors always welcome suggestions. If enough people ask for something, I’m sure they’d give it consideration.
Report comment to moderator
Even if I wanted to have an online discussion about, oh, ordination of women, WoW wouldn’t be the appropriate forum. We wouldn’t get to Comment Number 4 before some ed or donato would say “Christians hate women. Everybody knows that,” leading some well-meaning, not necessarily blog-savvy or troll-resistant Christians down a rabbit trail.
The noise of blogging just overpowers the subtle signal of theological discourse.
So, when I say WoW is “a conservative political blog run by Christians,” I don’t mean it as a complaint.
Report comment to moderator
Sub-blogs would be intriguing. I imagine we have a lot of collective knowledge here that would be fun to share. Where else am I going to rant and rave about the best albums of 2007? Neon Bible is so over-rated!
Oops, thought I was on Pitchfork for a second.
Report comment to moderator
Sometimes I think “Wouldn’t it be cool to have your own blog site?”. I could pontificate to my hearts content
. I could have all of the categories I wanted. One thing’s for sure – it would be very eclectic.
But then I think “It would be a lot of work and I would be a minnow swimming in an ocean of blogs”. So for now, I’m happy as a clam participating on here. Besides, it’s more fun aggravating y’all from time to time
Report comment to moderator
We also have Whirled Views where we can discuss any subject. As a rule, by the time the discussion on there turns to theology, it’s quickly over my head, and I graduated from a conservative Bible college–I don’t say that to brag, but to say that if this were a site for theology, 95% of us would end up leaving.
Report comment to moderator
Robhays – 22
You post…..”So if we’re sending the message that they should take their ball and go home because we’re talking about Christian stuff, I daresay that’s not very Christ-like. The political discussion (debates, chair-throwing matches, whatever) are often what draws in people who’ve never heard of World before, but how we dialogue with them determines whether or not they stay.”
I don’t think a message of “that they should take their ball and go home because we’re talking about Christian stuff” would be the way to go at all. That would defeat the purpose of having the blog, and counter-productive
The political discussions are great, they have just become more than needed as I see it. I read endless news, I’m more than interested in politics, but its getting to be most of the menu here.
Lynn does a VERY good job on the blog – and the new site has been up and running for a short time, it takes time to ’settle in’ so to speak -
Report comment to moderator
VS – 25
Maybe you could ‘drop’ the ‘catty’ remarks, it solves nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Robhays – 28
That’s a great idea!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – 30
I don’t think this site should be mainly doctrine at all, that wouldn’t work. I hope that isn’t what you thought I meant.
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB: WoW . . . is really not a “Christian blog.” It’s a conservative political blog run by Christians.
An S.U.V. with a fish decal on the back is not a Christian truck, just a truck driven by Christians. Of course. That’s not what you mean to say about this blog, however. You’re making a point about what a Christian blog would be. So, STUBOB, what’s the distinction you have in mind between a Christian blog and a blog run by Christians? Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
That’s easy. A Christian blog would have a Grand Inquisitor, who would ferret out the heretics, keep the wood pile full, and the torches lit
Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, back to the original (I always seem to come in on the tail end.. sigh):
There may be something else at work, namely a contentiousness that may be part of the DNA of sectarian protestantism. When you come out of a militant tradition like that of the Reformed; or you come you from a tradition built on separation — the default position in public discussion can be a kind of contentiousness. (Outsiders some call this a “legalism”, but I think it more sort of our genetic inheritance).
Then if that weren’t enough, we talk about public/social issues where lines can easily get drawn. Put those two together and it’s a wonder that someone hasn’t harnessed the heat to relieve our country’s energy deficit.
Report comment to moderator
I wish there were some way to STOP a thread from being ‘taken over’ by any individual, because they want a forum, for whatever topic they have in mind.
A thread is started on a particular ‘topic’ and then it is TAKEN OVER by someone or a ‘few’ which determine they want to change the topic because of any number of reasons. I find this to be unfair, not only to the writer, of the ‘topic’ but to everyone concerned. I have fallen into the trap of posting when this has happened, just because I wanted to give my view point, but it certainly isn’t fair.
Report comment to moderator
Lynn, if “other faith blogs could take a lesson in civility from us,” much of the credit goes to you. Thanks for wielding your sceptre so well.
Report comment to moderator
So, STUBOB, what’s the distinction you have in mind between a Christian blog and a blog run by Christians? Thanks.
A “Christian blog” would be written exclusively by Christians or only about theological topics or some such thing. Though I haven’t been to any of them, it would appear that the sites referenced in the article purport to be Christian blogs.
Report comment to moderator
Christians duke it out online
Just the title is a hoot.
Our occult and supenatural beliefs are the “real” ones, yours aren’t “real”.
Report comment to moderator
STUBOB –
“A “Christian blog” would be written exclusively by Christians or only about theological topics or some such thing. Though I haven’t been to any of them, it would appear that the sites referenced in the article purport to be Christian blogs.”
Stubob, I agree –
I have thought about this blog, it can’t be compared to the Magazine exclusively – it cannot be everything to everybody – that is the worlds idea – and where has that taken us?
Report comment to moderator
#38 – If a topic is “taken over”, you can always take it back. Comment on the original topic. People will blog about what is interesting to them. I would rather read interesting comments that are off topic than have the topic police get involved. That sounds fair to me.
Report comment to moderator
Pam
So its a ‘free for all’ – no rules no anything just post and mix it up?
Report comment to moderator
That’s not what I said. Think what you will.
Report comment to moderator
Pam 43 – 43
So what do you mean??????????
Report comment to moderator
Whenever there is dialogue on a topic, things are mentioned that can spawn another discussions. For example, the original question in this thread is
“Is there anyone new here who can comment on their experiences on other faith blogs?” Our dialogue here doesn’t answer that question. Should Lynn delete our comments because they are off topic? If anyone here finds our interaction boring, they are always free to return to the original question. A “free for all” would be if I started talking about how to carve a pumpkin on a capital punishment thread.
Report comment to moderator
EXACTLY Pam……
You are describing exactly what I was posting.
If one is talking about Romney, (thread topic) then someone decides to post about a doctrinal issue such as Christ being DEITY that would be way off the chart. But that’s exactly what happened this last week. The reason…..? they were not able to post because of a glitch in the system, so…..another thread was hijacked. Think that’s fair?
Report comment to moderator
Well, I sort of lost the gist of the conversation here…
But that’s the reason why I don’t tend to post a tremendous lot on things. I don’t want to get incensed or incensive in a public sphere without the background of a relationship with the people I’m “duking it out” with.
I hope that made sense. ^_^
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think anyone realizes the time Lynn spends on this blog to make it what it is. We may not all agree on what we think it should be, but lets face it folks, we don’t pay the bills here either.
There are lots of things I would change, but Lynn isn’t one of them.
There should be more ‘guide lines’ or RULES.
Lets list the changes which would make this a better blog.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Galadriel,
I’m glad you are posting, its always nice to meet someone new.
Victoria
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know what you mean by “fair”. Is anyone preventing you from posting on the topic?
I have not read the thread on Romney (and won’t be if it is the one with 216 comments), but since Mormons do not believe in the deity of Christ, that does not sound off topic to me any more than our discussion here is off topic for this thread. For the sake of argument, let’s say discussing the deity of Christ was off topic. One person alone can’t take over a thread. I made a comment about Alan Keyes on the “God’s Word, Candidate’s words” topic which was off topic since he was not even in the debates (which is why I made the comment in the first place.) No one responded to my comment. That’s fine. That means they are not interested in discussing Alan Keyes. I can’t have a discussion with myself about Keyes. But if at least one other person wanted to discuss Keyes, it would have been interesting. The others could join in or they could stick to the topic. No harm done.
Report comment to moderator
Pam
That’s not what I was posting about.
I don’t want to mix and match this up with Romney and the topic being changed. YES, one person can take a ‘topic off’ – Lets just let this go, OK.
I hope you have a great weekend.
Report comment to moderator
You too
Report comment to moderator
ROBHAYS,
I like the idea of sub-blogs. I’m not sure what kind of space is required to do that kind of thing, but I bet it would result in some pretty fascinating discussions.
Report comment to moderator
Mr Meaner, I am SURE you are right, and I hope that others agree to it.
Report comment to moderator
I stand corrected. Someone did comment on Keyes.
Report comment to moderator
With sub blogs you could have more sophisticated races to the bottom.
Report comment to moderator
OK Victoria (#33) I’ll try to stop the “catty” remarks if you’ll stop with the arrogance and condescending attitude with almost everyone on here,ok? You are coming across as a smug know it all to be quite frank about it.
One comment you’re cutting on someone and then the next, you’re “kissing” up.
You act as if you’re better than most of us. If you really don’t feel that way, then you need to work on your delivery.
Report comment to moderator
VS
It’s obvious you have a problem with me and the way I express myself. I can’t help you with that –
When I agree with someone, I tell them I do and why, when I don’t and its an ethical issue, or a doctrinal issue I speak up. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I don’t -
Report comment to moderator
Mr_Meaner – 56
What kind of sub-blogs would you suggest?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!