I haven't been on this site for a while now. I have found that, no matter what the subject matter of any post is, about 75% of the time it reverts to a discussion on baptism/immersion/saved by grace/works theology/ etc., etc.

I wonder if it might be time to revamp the forum. We could do this by posting a "disclaimer" or whatever we wanted to call it, at the top of the posting page. It could inform folks of what the Christian Church / Church of Christ stands for biblically, and we could begin from that point. Once anyone digressed the discussions into something that is already covered by that disclaimer, Duane, as the moderator, could drop their posting.

I really don't want this to sound too harsh, but I am of the opinion that it is time for The Christian Church Forum to be just that. There is plenty to discuss within the framework of our biblical belief system, without having to wade through repeats and repeats and more repeats of what is basically the same disscussion matter over and over and over again. There are any number of chat rooms and forums on the net where these discussions might be more readily accepted.

Now, this is just my opinion and my suggestion. Duane, you may take it into consideration. Everyone else, feel free to give your opinion on this matter, and Duane can take whatever action he deems appropriate. I do know that if The Christian Church Forum continues to spend such an inordinate amount of time with discussions on subjects that most of us have concluded in our own minds, then I will go ahead and look for another forum where those of us who hold biblical pov's can discuss other items of interest.

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

Answers

My vote is to keep things much as they are now. I have lots of reasons, and lots of counter-arguments for what Darrell says, above, but no time to give them now. If he's the only one that feels this way, it's also probably not worth taking much time to discuss the matter. If it turns out that there is much support for making the changes he proposes, I'll come in again and give my reasons then for supporting the current way of doing things.

-- Anonymous, May 25, 2000

I don't mind all the discussion over matters of theology, but I have been disappointed by how a person can ask a question, and everyone debates points from the first response rather than trying to answer the question.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Scott -- get used to it. That happens in most discussion forums, not just this one.

Maybe I misunderstood the original purpose of this forum when Duane established it. I understood that the basic biblical beliefs we hold to within The Christian Church were understood, and we would move on from there.

Then again, maybe that was the original purpose, but that purpose has changed since this was established.

It just seems to me that the majority of discussion time is spent on those basic subjects I mentioned in the original post ... and these are items that should be understood by those who are posting from within The Christian Church / Church of Christ movements.

Maybe I am the only one with this view. That's cool! I don't mind switching to another forum or discussion group.

Have a GREAT Memorial Day weekend ... and a tip of the hat or salute to all who have served our great country over the years!

Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Darrell, I suppose if the only folks who read and posted here were CoC/CC/RM folks, we wouldn't have to retread basic ground continually.

But as long as there are active participants who do not agree with such basic understandings of scripture as we do, then we will have to go over those grounds again and again.

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Darrell (and all)

I would be interested in hearing some of the subjects you'd like to discuss. Also, the urls of some other forums out there with interests in CC/CoC/RM??

Cynthia

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

I tend to agree with Darrell. This Forum is getting big. The Archives are growing. Take a look at "older threads" and you will find much valuable material, even when it comes as answers from the sober minded to the wackos. (said in typical Schwingel sarcastic love)

Thanks to all for hanging with this too. You will begin to notice changes being made. I DO WANT to hear Benjamin's comments however; I have always found wisdom in his insight.

Cynthia, "somewhere" in these archives are good Restoration links:... If someone finds them before me, let us know....

See ya...

YODA

-- Anonymous, May 26, 2000

Next week. As soon as I can manage the time after Sunday and catching up from other things that also tend to get postponed as the end/beginning of the week approaches.

-- Anonymous, May 27, 2000

Duane,

The following is not a reasoned and coherent argument on the subject, but a series of observations that I think are relevant to the question of whether or not you should "revamp" the forum. Some do follow a sort of logical progression from one to the next, some do not.

* I have very little way of knowing which participants in the forum are members of the "Christian Church" (or "Church of Christ"). Some have declared themselves; most have not. Some are listed in the Directory of the Ministry, because they happen to be ministers of churches; most (of those I've looked up) are not. But my impression is that the regular participants of the forum who are NOT from Restoration Movement churches can be counted on one hand. (I can think of Connie, "dvbz", Barry Hanson, and Gavin -- two avowed Calvinists, one "Faith Only" but not a Calvinist, at least not in her own view, and one anti-Christian agnostic. I THINK I saw somewhere that Dr. Jon Dewey is Baptist, but you'd hardly know it from what he says. Then there may also be the "toilet mouths" you referred to, but their stuff was deleted as fast as it appeared.) So it is not as though this forum is being overwhelmed by PEOPLE from other groups.

* I'm not sure where Darrell gets his 75% figure from. I've only been in this forum a few months (since about February, I think), so I don't know what things were like before I started. I can only address what I've seen and what I'm seeing now. In terms of the number of words written, he MIGHT be right, because the threads on "baptism/immersion/saved-by-grace/works-theology" etc. have been some of the longest ones, but it is certainly not true in terms of the number of threads. There are only a few threads that have dealt with this issue. Most of these have been clearly identified as such. Only a few that have been started on other topics have "reverted" to this discussion. Most of the threads I've looked at have not even touched on these issues. (Of course there are also a lot of "Unanswered Questions", and that's another matter.)

* Several of the threads that have been started on these topics have been started by "our own" people. In most of the threads that were started on other topics and then have "reverted" to these discussions, it has been "our" people who have brought up the issue. What I've seen a few times is that one of the "Faith Only" people (often Connie, since she is such a prolific writer with an apparently very wide range of interests) will submit something to one of these other threads. Their submission will be completely "on topic", but someone else, seeing the name, will bring up baptism -- "so why aren't you immersed?"

* The way the forum operates at present, anyone can "Ask a Question" about virtually anything. There are questions that could be asked, which no one has. (If there are things Darrell would like to discuss, he could "ask the question".) There are many questions people have asked, which have remained unanswered, apparently because no one except the questioner was sufficiently interested. Some of the longest threads have been those on the topics Darrell seems to think we should eliminate -- which suggests that even if he isn't interested, other people are. (It is possible for a thread to degenerate into a long argument between a couple of people -- or even a monologue with multiple postings by the same person -- but that doesn't seem to have been a very big problem with these particular threads (on salvation, baptism, etc.).

* The issues that Darrell feels should be screened out are at least religious issues, in fact, specifically Christian issues. If anything is to be screened out, what about some of the not-specifically-religious issues, like gun control, hog hunts, and things like that? I'm not necessarily saying that those should be screened out. I'm sure those who brought up these topics can give good reasons for doing so. But I think salvation issues certainly have as much "right" to be aired as these other matters.

* If you are to inform people "what the Christian Church stands for Biblically" and screen out those who "digress" into discussing something that is already covered, who is to decide how specific this is to be and what issues are included as already settled and which are fair game for discussion. Although Darrell did say, "what the Christian Church / Church of Christ stands for Biblically", the name of the forum is "The Christian Church" forum. Most of us -- especially all who would be using the name "Christian Church" -- feel the question of the use of musical instruments is already settled. So why bother to discuss this? (I'd like to, and as I've said elsewhere, would like an open discussion of the issue, but the same principle holds -- so who decides and on what basis?)

* We say we don't believe in creeds, but wouldn't such a statement be like a kind of "mini-creed"?

* I wonder if these issues of "baptism/immersion/saved-by-grace/works-theology" really are "subjects that most of us have concluded in our own minds"? I'm a little out of touch with what is happening in the U.S., but from things I have read in the Restoration Herald (and even a time or two in the Christian Standard), I get the impression that there is a growing number of "our" churches -- churches affiliated with and coming out of a Restoration Movement heritage -- that do not necessarily believe that this is an already decided issue, i.e. churches that practice what used to be called "Open Membership", or that follow the Baptist and general Evangelical practice of accepting people as "saved" on profession of their faith and baptising as a "further step of obedience." So perhaps this is an issue that SHOULD be discussed even if Darrell feels that it is already settled.

* Our particular position on baptism is one of the "distinctives" of our movement, so why not be willing to discuss it when people ask? I think I remember one or two people asking what our beliefs are. The "disclaimer" or statement of what we stand for that Darrell suggests might be a sufficient answer for some. But what if someone wanted to know more, or wanted to ask "why" we held a particular view? Could they not ask? Should we not answer?

* If someone from "our" churches were to say, "I'm trying to win my Calvinist friend" or "my brother-in-law refuses to be baptised because he believes he is already saved", and asks for advice on how best to win them, should we not offer such advice? Darrell, would you think such a request should be ignored because we ourselves have already concluded in our minds what we believe? True, no one has asked these questions -- at least not that I have seen. Instead we have had the real thing! -- real Calvinists and real Faith-Only people willing to debate the issues with us! Not only is this an opportunity to TRY to change their minds, but it gives us the opportunity to see some of their arguments first hand, to see first hand how various of "our" people would deal with them, and to judge the relative effectiveness of actual arguments on both sides. I am indebted to Danny Gabbard for pointing out that there is a "dualistic" side to the faith only side. Barry and dbvz brought up arguments from the faith only side that I had not previously encountered. I found my wits were sharpened by the "debate" and I feel better prepared for the next time I engage in such a debate in a "live" situation.

* Although the same topics have come up a number of times, and been discussed at considerable length each time, I don't see all that much repetition except in the topics themselves. On the faith only issue, my arguments and those of Danny and Jenny Gabbard and Lee Saffold were quite different (we even got into arguments about it because I was afraid their approach would drive people away rather than win them), and Mark "Whiz" is giving yet another perspective to the discussion now. So I haven't felt that it is "repeats and repeats and more repeats of what is basically the same discussion matter over and over and over again."

* I obviously disapprove strongly of screening out the kinds of issues that Darrell has specifically mentioned, but I do have one suggestion that might deal with part of his concern. He says that "no matter what the subject matter of any post is, about 75% of the time it reverts to a discussion on ...." Why not insist that when a particular topic is declared, people who post to that thread should stick to that topic or at least to closely related matters? If someone changes the subject radically, tell them to either stick to the subject or start a new thread on the new topic. That way you are not screening out any topic that people might be interested in, but it makes it easier for people to find the topics they are interested in and helps ensure that the "contents" are "as advertised".

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

I start to worry when I find myself agreeing with two opposing views.

Darrell may correct me, but I think his main intent was some sort of streamlining....

As new people enter the Forum, they ask questions which have already been beaten to death in previous posts.

Much of the respsonsibility will be mine as I endeavor to "ADD NEW TOPICS" to the list of Archives. Remember when I started this Forum, I entitled one Subject simply "Preacher" stuff!!!!!

Well, The filing cabinet is getting bigger, and it is time to ADD a WHOLE lot of topics.... And I need all of you regulars to help me with this... email me for the new administration password!

Then when a new person enters and asks, "Why must one be immersed?" we can gently lead them to the archive topic "baptism" thread titled "why be immersed?"..... we can also offer ourselves available for future private emails.

I don't know about the rest of you but from personal experience and private emails I can count 14 NEW CHRISTIANS who attribute This Forum as one of the (if not THE) major impetus for their search.

Based on it's humble beginnings, and where we have come, I think God would be proud of us..... Some of us do have to go on vacation for a while.... (Where are you, Nate?), but all in all, stick in there...

I would encourage all of you to put yourselves on the email alerts...

You can choose instant notification to even weekly, I think....

This way you can scan for the topics and issues that are of your immediate concern...

One topic I will ADD will be "Light Banter" or "Preacher Boy Fellowship" because I LOVE Danny's Hog Hunt updates..

Again, I solicit all of you to send me "Topic Titles"..... This will help us "FIND" some of those great posts we read six months ago, and are looking for sermon material, et.al...

But I don't think Darrell was suggesting we drop the whole Restoration Framework and start some Hog Hunt/Bald Preacher Forum. (gotcha, Darrell)

After all, he did write:

There is plenty to discuss within the framework of our biblical belief system, without having to wade through repeats and repeats and more repeats of what is basically the same disscussion matter over and over and over again.

So consider these things.... send me more topic titles and I will get to work "re-vamping".... so that this can be BOTH a help to hard working preachers and their congregations AND an effective evangelistic tool.....

AND STAY TUNED for the ALL NEW "ACCAPELLA" Forum, where we will only post in long hand.... :)

YODA

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Brother Ben ...

Thanks for your post. And I believe I agree with you. I'm not saying we need to abandon all these discussions about the basics of Christianity ... but you hit it on the head when you noted that I was focussed on the fact that way too many times a discussion is begun on one subject, then within a few posts, it "digresses" into another discussion on the purpose of immersion ... works salvation ... etc. And to tell you the truth, there are only a few folks who actually do this.

Duane, if there is some way to ensure that folks stay "on subject" then I believe this problem would be solved. I used to get the email alerts ... but stopped when the majority of them reverted to immersion/grace/works/etc. Let's keep people on the subject, and if there are those who want to rehash some of the older posts, let them ... but in their own threads. Darrell H Combs

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

Only post in longhand? Why, because we can't use writing "instruments?" <grin>

-- Anonymous, May 30, 2000

I certainly agree with adding more "Topic Titles". Several times when I have started a new thread, I have listed it as "undesignated" (or whatever the actual equivalent is) because it didn't seem to quite fit any of the existing titles. Also, when I have been looking for some of the past threads I want to review, I've had trouble finding some of them because I didn't know what topic they were classified under.

I am one (most of us are) who has opted not to be notified. I get too many e-mails already to want to have instant notification. So I tried the weekly notification and the first week received a massive considerably-more-than-a-megabyte e-mail that took forever to download, took more space than I could really afford at that time (I hadn't done any "house-cleaning" for awhile and my "in-box" was already rather large), would have taken more time than I had to read through, and contained more about topics I wasn't interested in than it did topics I was. So I cancelled that.

What I do now, whenever I log onto this site, is to first read all the new threads that have just been started (or, if I'm pressed for time, any that look interesting by their title). Then I click on "New Answers" to see which threads have had new postings since I last checked. If some thread -- even my favourite -- doesn't have anything new in it, it's probably not worth looking at again until there is something new. I've found this saves a lot of time over my earlier practice of checking certain threads every time. This way I also find out when there is a flurry of new postings to some thread that I thought had been long abandoned.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2000

Hello, Duane and all,

As an outsider, I was not going to comment, but I want to contribute something after all.

First, I would like to express HIGH PRAISE to Duane for his evenhandedness, his humor, and his devotion to freedom of speech. I have appreciated all of these, even when directed to me. (The humor).

The suggestion I have is from the viewpoint of one who might happen on this site, thinking it is a 'generic' Christian site.

An explanation of your Scriptural stands is good, right at the outset. Also, a strong suggestion that one visit the archives before commenting wouldn't be bad. I don't know if anyone remembers my first posts, but they were rather timid. (In comparison to my later posts).

If I had known your doctrinal positions 'right out of the box' I perhaps wouldn't have so soon, after being what I considered attacked, come back so defensively and assertively.

I was sort of amazed at your position on baptism, considering I had never heard it, except in the churches which baptize babies.

I have learned quite a bit in my visits here and you have a good site, partly because you don't shut off debate.

We don't learn a whole lot from people with whom we agree on everything. It is comfortable to be with such people, just not educational.

Thank you, Duane, and all; KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. (Oh, no! That word)!

Sincerely,

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

Darrell:

I also appreciate the information you posted a couple of months back, outlining RM beliefs and some history and other material. I didn't mean to ignore that you started this thread. Thank you.

-- Anonymous, June 01, 2000

OVER HERE!!! *waving frantically* Somebody throw me a lifeline! (And yes, DO hold onto one end of the rope please!) :-D

-- Anonymous, June 06, 2000