E. Lee,

I wish to discuss the issue of authority and instruments with you, however I am concerned about time limits I may have. As such, I would like to propose a formal discussion, based on the following rules (these are not set in stone and can be negotiated to our agreement):

1. This will be a discussion between Scott Jewell and E. Lee Saffold (herafter referred to as participants). This thread is for the exclusive use of the two participants and/or moderators as selected by the participants. Comments by other parties should be made in a separate thread or sent by private correspondence.

2. The purpose of this discussion is to examine the truth and the evidences given by Scripture which support that truth. As such, participants will keep in mind that the other party is making an honest attempt to explain his views (even erroneously stated or held) and will refrain from commenting on the quality of a posting other than to state disagreement with the view and reasoning thereof.

3. As stated above, time may be an issue, so either participant has up to one week to respond to a posting from the other participant. If a response fails to come after one week, the waiting participant will e-mail the tardy participant to see if he is able to continue with the discussion at that time.

4. Participants will refrain from using "we" to refer to the author of the posting. (E. Lee, I know this has been an ongoing issue between you and others. You told Bill that if he could provide a reason other than personal preference you would honor this request. Here are my reasons. A- I want to be absolutely sure of whom you are referring when you use the word "we." Sometimes, as you've stated, you are referring to yourself, other times a small group of people, and still other times, a more general group of believers. B- In Romans 14:1-23, Paul is discussing the issue of what foods may be eaten by believers. Although he says that a believer is at liberty to eat anything, he says to abstain when it is known that it will cause a brother to stumble. From my observation, many a brother has stumbled as a result of the use of the word "we". Silly of them, yes, but it's happening all the same. For these two reasons, I have included rule 4.)

Please let me know if these terms are acceptable to you, suggest any modifications or additions, and we can begin our discussion.

God bless, Scott Jewell

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Answers

Nice try Robin. :)

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Scott, It was 30 days ago someone else suggested a debate. Click here for an informative background.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

I just don't understand the aversion to E. Lee writing in a style he chooses?? Why do people feel that it is a feeding frenzy on him lately?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

You mean "them" don't you?

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Cynthia,

I believe, perhaps, that it is because they are "chicken and never intend to debate anyone"!! :-)

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Robin, I am not chicken. I would be glad to debate anyone on the authorization issue, including yourself. E. Lee was already asked twice by debate challengers to drop the WE. I don't think his/their refusal to drop it is an indication of being chicken. But I can see how it can look that way. I believe his/their refusal is based on pride.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Wow! A lot has been written here since I issued the challenge. People have been conjecturing quite a bit as to how things are going to go.

For the general public who have been reading and posting their thoughts here:

1. I typically stay offline during the day. I work out of my home and try to keep the phone line open. I only now realized that the posts indicate date, but not time. Typically speaking, I will be reading debate messages and responding between the hours of 10 PM and 1 AM. (If anyone would care to donate the modem and monthly access for DSL to an inner city ministry, I would be happy to accept and make myself available for quicker responses so people don't have to wonder about my intentions. :^) ) So please do not jump to conclusions when people have posted four or five times since my original posts. I just read all the responses, believe me, it took a while.

2. I have been following the debate proposals for some time, just did not care to add anything until now. So, I am familiar with various "hostilities" and whatnot.

3. Having made my post, I now wish I had made it privately so that E. Lee and I could have discussed the "we" issue without people causing further digging of heels, so to speak.

4. I am a little disappointed that the thread title was changed, as I was proposing more of a discussion than a debate. However, upon further contemplation, I feel that's mere semantics.

5. Let this stand as an announcement that there will be a debate. Thank you Duane for setting up a thread. At this time though, I do not plan to begin posting there yet. Instead, please be patient as E. Lee and I come to terms on the rules then hash out our statements of affirmation. Once that happens, we will post an announcement with one line saying that we are posting our rules and statements of affirmation in the assigned thread.

6. I am not doing this to prove E. Lee wrong or myself right. I am doing this because I am very curious to learn what E. Lee bases his beliefs on so that I can have better understanding of a brother in Christ. We may end up agreeing to disagree. One of us may convince the other is in error. Either way, it is my prayer that this debate will help each of us to understand the other better.

7. (You know I couldn't stop with 6) E. Lee mentioned that he does not know me personally nor my walk with Christ. Understandable, I have avoided writing before because I find that if you let the dust settle after the nitpicky arguing, it becomes much easier to discuss a difference in belief because people aren't focused on the heat of the battle. E. Lee (or anyone else), I need to work up a couple of proposals (our church meets in my house currently, but the Catholics may be willing to let us use space for some outreach ministries to youth). If you want to know who I am and what I'm about, go to umstl.org. It's the website that describes my ministry in St. Louis. The pages about the church are incomplete (kind of like the church), but it should give you a pretty good idea.

E. Lee,

I will be writing you privately later tonight to discuss the terms of our debate. May I suggest we come to terms first, then put together our statements of affirmation (by the way, having never done this, would you be willing to write the first statement so that I can get a feel for the construction of it?), then choose our moderators allowing them to view the rules and statements before they agree to moderate, then announce the beginning and post the rules, names of participants/moderators, and our statements of affirmation?

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Testing, I'm trying to set up a different e-mail address so that I can keep the debate items separate from other mail I receive. This message is to see if it's working.

-- Anonymous, December 11, 2001

Benjamin,

You have said, "Robin, I am not chicken." in response to my saying, "I believe, perhaps, that it is because they are "chicken and never intend to debate anyone"!! :-) "

I was not calling you or anyone a chicken. It was a joke (note smilely face) or a 'dig' at Duane. He made the "chicken" accusation about E. Lee earlier in this thread and then when I asked him to support his accusation... he deleted my post!! I was trying, in a light-handed way, to point out to him that the very same accusation concerning the "holding on to the 'we' issue" could be made about the 'other side'. No offense intended.

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Brethren:

We hope that you notice the fact that Brother Duane does not have the courage to leave our post in this thread. He has deleted them because they criticize him. Now, this is his forum. And freedom of speech does not mean that he must allow us to be heard in his forum. But if he agrees to allow a debate between two parties then he has no right to delete the post of any of the two parties to the debate that he allows. Now this particular thread was supposed to be for the two participants to talk with one another. Please read it again:

“1. This will be a discussion between Scott Jewell and E. Lee Saffold (herafter referred to as participants). This thread is for the exclusive use of the two participants and/or moderators as selected by the participants. Comments by other parties should be made in a separate thread or sent by private correspondence.”

Now, according to this statement the only parties that are supposed to be posting in this thread are the participants. This would be E. Lee Saffold and Scott Jewell and or their moderators. Then Duane began to post as if he were a moderator of the debate when neither participant had selected him to be a moderator. And he also, as moderator of the forum began taking one side over the other. Then he is deleting the posts of one of the participants just because he does not like the position that this participant takes on this issue.

Now, if he is going to allow a debate in his forum between E. Lee Saffold and Scott Jewell then he must allow each participant freedom of speech. And he will be required before such debate takes place to agree in writing in this forum that he will not delete the words of either participant during the debate. For his deleting our words would give the other side a clear advantage and would not allow for fairness in the debate.

So, we request that Brother Duane put our post in this thread back into it or take out the post of those to whom we were responding including his own. And we also request that he honor the fact that this thread according to the words stated by Brother Jewell is for the participants and moderators only.

And we are certain that our readers can see that brother Duane is not fit to be the moderator in this debate because he is clearly acting in a biased manner favoring one side over the other in the debate. But, we are sure that no one actually expected him to be fair in this matter in the first place.

Now, he is the owner of this forum and if he chooses to not be fair that is his business. But before any debate takes place in this forum between myself of anyone else we will demand a statement from him declaring that he will not delete any of our words used DURING THAT DEBATE. Now, Brethren, we appeal to your sense of fairness and ask that you also request that Brother Duane be fair in this matter of allowing debates in HIS forum.

Now, if he does not want to allow debates in HIS forum that is his business. But if he is going to allow them we should expect that he would agree to be fair to all parties involved in a debate. It seems quite obvious to any thinking person that he does not want to allow for a fair even debate of this issue in HIS forum, doesn’t it?

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Fair enough. I have thought, prayed, and thought some more about this. Personally, I believe that I have been guilty of mixing two issues in my mind and the result has been detrimental to clear thinking about either. For this reason, I will allow whatever type of language in the Authorization debate which the two participants mutally agree on.

As Moderator of the Forum in general, I will just need in advance(in private email) what the two participants agreed on beforehand, and I will see to it that outsider posts will be deleted in a timely fashion. I also agree that because of my involvement in this discussion, it is best that I not be the moderator for either side, although I must remind the readers that originally E. Lee suggested only one moderator, and that Darrell or myself would be ok with him. But things do change, and I agree that with what is "under the bridge" now, neither Darrell nor I would be able to maintain the perception of objectivity which is necessary to facilitate understanding of this topic.

And that is the goal. As I said, though, there were two topics at hand. The Authorization Issue and the Editorial We. I will also start a thread concerning this, because I find it interesting. Those who wish to discuss this or folllow the thread may do so if they please.

Meanwhile, we (myself, Danny, and some other co-moderators) will try to delete threads or posts which we(same) feel unproductive, including those that taunt, tease, accuse or distract from the flow of thought in that particular thread. This is not a black and white area, and it will be the sole discretion of the co-moderators, and we do welcome private emails and input. Taunting, teasing, and accusing CAN be done at times playfully, and in a Christian spirit; so I am not necessarily making hard and fast rules... Once again, it will be left up to us (the co-moderators).

Until the "Editorial We" thread progresses (unless it dies on the vine for lack of interest, which is fine too) and I hear all opinions, I will retract my demand (in any of the threads) to refrain from the editorial we. Again, on a personal level, I don't want one issue (E. Lee's use of "we") to cloud other issues (my respect for E. Lee and desire to converse on other issues--both those we stand together on, and those we disagree on)

That being said, I will try to "clean up" posts that weirdly refer to threads deleted, and/or re- submit those posts that contribute to the main subject, asking the readers for some grace and willingness to move forward in a manner that is fitting for reasonable Christians.



-- Anonymous, December 12, 2001

Scott,

You said: “If you want to know who I am and what I'm about, go to umstl.org.”

I tried to go there about 10 times but only got the error page saying “The page cannot be displayed”. Is that an umst…lower-case L or a number 1?

Thanks,

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Scott,

I also tried emailing you at: mail@umstl.org using both a lower-case L and a Number 1, but got a message back saying there was no such address.

Help...

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Apparently the new address isn't working with the forum for some reason. Go ahead and use scottj@umstl.org. That's a lower case L. It stands for Urban Mission St. Louis.

D. Lee, Try putting the www in front of the address. Sometimes I find that it won't work unless it's there. Other times, it doesn't seem to matter. The internet, go figure.

E. Lee, I'm not sure if you tried to correspond to me privately or not. I have not received anything from you in the last couple of days at either address. If you have responded, please resend it to scottj@umstl.org. Thanks!

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brother Duane:

You have said:

“Sigh...”

You would not be so frustrated or tired to feel like sighing if you had thought prayerfully and seriously about your decision to delete threads that did not suit your personal preferences, now would you?

Then you say:

Feel free to re-post anything that was deleted...”

We do not need your permission to “feel free”. WE are free without your permission and it feels great. So, we are indeed free to post anything again that you delete. And we will save all of our work in the future just so that we can post them again every time that you feel this ignorant urge to delete someone’s post simply because the writer does not write in a style that suits your personal preference.

But concerning the posts that you have unjustly deleted we say simply that you are the one that deleted them, Brother, and therefore you should be the one to replace them! Especially since we put them in the forum and trusted that you would leave them there we did not save them on our computer. We will do that in the future however. But for now you deliberately deleted our posts without any concern whatsoever whether we would ever be able to replace them. And now you ask us to do what you promised you would do and what you by all rights should do. SO, we cannot trust you to keep your word, now can we?

Then you say:

“ Feel free to not do so and waste your time whining about it....”

We are not “whining” Brother. We are pointing out how inconsistent and unjust you are so that all can see it. And you have helped greatly in making it abundantly clear just how unjust you can be haven’t you. This is what we want every one to see. Beware Brothers if you post anything in this forum you had better make sure that Brother Duane agrees with it. For if he does not like it he will delete it especially if he is angry about it. And if you do not save it you will not be able to post it again after it has been unjustly deleted. And Brother Duane will promise to repair his error and replace it but he will not keep that promise. Instead he will return and tell you to replace it.

Then he says:

“ Feel free to do whatever you want--you are hanging yourself with your own rope.”

Brother, we are not seeking to “feel free”. We are free and there is nothing you can do about it. You can cast us out of YOUR FORUM but if you allow us in here you are allowing a FREE MAN to be here, man who will not yield to your petty preferences just because you do not like how he says things. And we do not need your permission to do whatever we want. For we have demonstrated that this is what we are going to do whether you like it or not. That is what free men do. And we are indeed free, aren’t we?

And, we do not have any “rope” so it is not likely that we will hang ourselves. You are just angry and frustrated that we will not just allow you to easily “slip the noose” over our head, now aren’t you?

WE expect you to keep your promise to replace the treads that you deleted.

And we are watching to see if we can in fact trust you to keep that promise. If we cannot trust you to keep that promise then your trustworthiness will be forever in doubt in our minds. So, you do as you choose. Keep you promise or do not keep it. And we will do think and say whatever we believe about your choice.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 13, 2001

Brother Jewell:

You have said:

“Testing, I'm trying to set up a different e-mail address so that I can keep the debate items separate from other mail I receive. This message is to see if it's working.”

Brother Scott:

It is clearly working for sending emails as is evidenced by the fact that you above post actually made it to the forum. But it does not appear to be working in the “receive mode” for our emails to this address are all being returned to us without being delivered to you.

I have been trying to send my response to your email to me but he keeps being returned. Let me give you my Phone number so that you can call me about it. My numbers are (770-831-0398; 678-772-9618). Please call me so that we can resolve our communication problems and you can receive my replies to your email. You can call me collect and I will bear the expense.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001

E. Lee,

My schedule doesn't really allow time for a call (my wife is hassling me to get going to Bible study right as I type this). Use this e- mail address. I've contacted the tech support people about what's going on with my web site and e-mail address. Hopefully, it will be worked out this weekend.

God bless, Scott

-- Anonymous, December 14, 2001