The forum needs more diversity.
It needs more understanding and less “but you are just wrong!” Or un-Lutheran or un-Biblical, etc. etc.
It needs a broader spectrum of voices from the LCMS (although it is abundantly clear why moderate or liberal LCMS people do not feel safe here).
It needs more conservative voices from within the ELCA rather than from those who have left us.
It needs more female voices.
And we need some way to recognize and accept that the LCMS is broader than the loudest voices here, including Peter (and that the LCMS includes many like Matt Becker, now no longer LCMS) and that there is more to the ELCA than Brian and this humble correspondent (although I still believe we represent the mainstream of our church body.)
ALPB’s noble inter-Lutheran history and mission should take top billing and gain support, not “resolutions” declaring the ELCA heretical, or repeated “O! How terrible!, He’s doing it again!” posts passing judgment on individuals.
It seems clear to me that the dominant character of this forum is Republican, Missouri Synod, and conservative culturally. As post Trump-Republican it means only anti-Democrat (the political party). As Missouri Synod, it means only sub-confessional or extra-confessional ideology (e.g., six day, tightly closed communion, prohibition of any and all ecumenism).
The dominant participants seldom attempt to convince but only denounce. Instead of discussion, there is only disgust. Instead of tolerance for alternate ideas, there is only rejection of personalities. The unfortunate Missouri habit to "blanket condemn" all persons affiliated with competitive church bodies is assumed to be proper and accurate. (E.g., "every single member of the ELCA is taken to believe in abortion, non-theistic evolution, etc.)
I guess that as long as the present members are happy, we will not expand participation. We represent only a minority of Americans, a minority of Christians, and a minority of Lutherans. But we are grateful for the opportunity to "knock" Pastors Austin. Stoffregen and other "heretics" that pop up occasionally.
That's the way it looks to me.
Peace, JOHN
So, what should we do about it? Participation here is voluntary, we cannot draft participants to achieve a broader spectrum of opinions. Should we establish a quota system whereby participants are categorized as to the segment of the political/theological/denominational spectrum that they inhabit and then lock out some members of over represented segments so that we have roughly equal members from each segment actively participating?
The dominant participants seldom attempt to convince but only denounce. Instead of discussion, there is only disgust. Instead of tolerance for alternate ideas, there is only rejection of personalities. The unfortunate Missouri habit to "blanket condemn" all persons affiliated with competitive church bodies is assumed to be proper and accurate. (E.g., "every single member of the ELCA is taken to believe in abortion, non-theistic evolution, etc.)
Should we specify and enforce a tighter code of conduct and delete/ban those who denounce rather than convince or express disgust rather than discuss? What does it mean to have tolerance for alternate ideas? Does that mean accepting every idea expressed as right and proper without dissent?
I do agree that there has been much bad behavior by some of the participants and much, but not all, of that has been from conservatives. But not all. One participant regularly compares those who have a concern for correct doctrine as being like the Pharisees who opposed Jesus, and another regularly suggests that such concern is based not on faith but on fear, that opposition to certain behaviors derives not from a careful study of Scripture but gut revulsion and again fear. Questioning the sincerity of the faith of posters, questioning their openness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, questioning their intelligence has not come from only one side. If we are to impose a stricter code of on line content, it must apply to all sides. Claims of "well they did it first" doesn't really justify bad behavior.
Many of the worst offenders over the years have either dropped out or were banned. What would an adequate code of conduct that could be enforced look like?
I started this thread with the question of whether this forum is a safe space. The complaint seems to be that it is not a safe space for those on the more liberal side of things and that because of that they are under represented here? What would make it a safe space for them? Does it need to be a space where their perspective is automatically accepted and agreed with? Does it need to be a space where their interpretation of the world, Scripture, the Confessions, God's will is simply assumed to be correct without question? Or does it need to be a place where we are more civil and respectful of each other?
I'm all for being civil and respectful of each other. And believe it or not (certain individuals I suspect will not believe it) I am trying to moderate my own on line behavior to be more civil and respectful of others even if it to respectfully disagree vehemently. I also respectfully suggest that others who disagree with me would be as civil and respectful of me and people whom I agree with as they expect to be treated. Respect and civility needs to go both ways.
But there's the rub. We (and I include people in general, all of us) rarely see ourselves and the nature of our actions as clearly as we see that of others. Its the old mote and beam thing that Jesus commented on. It also means that if we are to enter discussion, we need to be willing to take disagreement, dissent, even denunciation as readily as we dish it out. If we are only to discuss with people who will primarily agree with us with only minor quibbles, then perhaps this is not the forum for you.
