posted
A private message just lighted upon my screen encouraging the lifting of the posting limit. Fine by me - let's give it a try. This will benefit those who don't drop often but when they do they have much to say. Also, no posting limits will simplify the forum rules, which is good.
(LA brought this idea up several months ago, btw, and I drug my feet on it. Sorry.)
RCC folks can handle this, no doubt. Now and then somebody joins and immediately posts so much that others feel left behind or outgunned. That's rare, though.
I think the solution will be more voluntary moderation from others who care - you. Any concerned reader may give a friendly nudge to somebody who is posting too much to keep up with.
Again, always deposit your message in a forum where such things are considered. Never hesitate to start a new thread if you want to change the direction of the conversation. Thanks to all who participate. Always feel free to post ideas about improving our Cafe in the Feedback area.
Think Jesus and walk in his light. Let it be, dear Lord.
Since we've had some increased traffic, I do think it is a good idea to soften the limit, although I don't mind having a rule of thumb to go by.
Particularly, I think it is good for rules to not apply about posts addressed to a specific person. But, I think it is a good idea to make sure someone gets a "round of responses" from a few people before I revisit the same topic.
Now might also be a good time to have a discussion about how to deal with people who come here with no interest in house church but only want to promote divisive doctrine. I know this is a very gray area (I myself am a kook - I think mothers should be keepers at home in the Proverbs 31 sense - imagine!) but there have been some who came here and never posted a single thing that had to do with growing in their faith or house church but posted Preterist doctrine or some other wild-haired thing. And in a couple of cases, these divisive people seem to have driven away the sincere hc seekers who got the impression that the forum was not safe for them.
Any thoughts?
-------------------- Posing as an Ordinary Housewife :)
I think we should think horizontal organization (as Sarmour just pointed out) when considering these issues. I think we all need to feel it is our responsibility to warmly welcome newcomers, and to step in if we feel they are experiencing pressure from anyone who is devisive. Relying on the moderator, or setting up exclusionary rules begins to look like vertical organization I think. I think we all should also feel the responsibility to confront others both privately and publically if we see they are being devisive in the ways that you mentioned.
quote:Originally posted by JeanneH: Yes, I know what you mean LA, ...if we see they are being devisive in the ways that you mentioned. Just some thoughts- what do others think?
In a perfect world, this would work. However, I think trying to correct some folks would just put yourself at risk as well. Way back in the early nineties I used to moderate an evolution Vs creation forum. Unfortunately there is a time when the moderators hammer MUST fall, or misbehavior will continue unabated. Sad.
Matthew
-------------------- Hope with abandon, all ye who enter here!
posted
How do you handle it in your home church setting? I didn't home church long enough to run into this situation--where the hammer fell. But I do know that the hammer fell for some in the home church I attended for that very reason and that is why they were meeting in their homes.
BTW, how do you view someone who holds a Preterist view? Do you consider them a brother or sister in Christ?
(I had to look up Preterist to find out what they believed. Doesn't appear to be anything that detracts from the gospel. I mean, they do believe the foundational doctrines of Christianity, don't they? Since we know so little, in truth, how do we know they are wrong and we (I guess I am excluded here too) are right? I just made a quick glance so I can't judge. But there does seem to be many variant of the Preterist view: Orthodox, partial, etc... Don't you think terms like Preterist and the like are divisive terms in much the same way denominations are divisive?)
posted
My goal in the home church setting is that when people come to a parting of the ways, they start a new church. Denominations only seem like a bad thing if you think we are all supposed to agree on everything. However, if we are all supposed to obey the Holy Spirit in our own families and our own lives, then I can give you permission to believe a lot of things differently than I.
The Church Multiplication people talk about "3 levels of authority": 1. Biblical Commands 2. Apostolic Practices 3. Human traditions.
Confusion reigns when people don't realize that ALL must obey the 1st, All must give liberty on the 2nd and ALL must recognize the 3rd for being neither the first nor the second!
As for Preterism, well, if someone wants to believe that Jesus came back in 70AD and that this is as good as it is going to get, and yet they show definite signs of regeneration, I guess I'll have to give them the benefit of the doubt. But RD Bradshaw, to me was not showing definite signs of being regenerate, but only definite signs of being a religious nut in all the worst senses of the word!
Blessings, Laurie Ann
-------------------- Posing as an Ordinary Housewife :)
quote: As for Preterism, well, if someone wants to believe that Jesus came back in 70AD and that this is as good as it is going to get. . .
I didn't see this when I was researching Preterist. Of course, I was reading a man who considers himself Orthodox Preterist. I'll have to go back and review. I definitely don't agree with that idea. Is that truly what they believe?
So perhaps you view denominationalism as a sort of Babel--a confusion, not of tongues, but of ideas that has the effect of causing people to disperse? I suppose when viewed that way it implies some benefit.
posted
That is the most extreme form, or some would say "the natural conclusion" of the Preterist view.
Yes, Babel would be a good example. Never thought of that! We have the "Scattering of the Church by Persecution" in Acts, and the Fight of Paul and Barnabas as scriptural types. God knows that if our "We_Four_No_More" Club gets too comfortable, his goal of "Every tribe, language, people and nation" worshiping at the throne would NEVER happen. So he does various things, including: giving new revelations of scripture that forces people to separate ways, persecution, job transfers, undesired guests, for example.
We tend to think of these things being caused by "The Enemy of our Souls" but I think it is often more likely "The Enemy of Our Flesh"... so to speak.
Laurie Ann
-------------------- Posing as an Ordinary Housewife :)
Some good thouhts. Reminds me of the story of Joseph. How he, perhaps unwisely, shared his dreams with his father and brothers, and how his father favored him, all to the end that his brother came to hate him. But in the end he understood that God caused it all to work to the good of the tribes of Israel.
Are you sure that the natural conclusion of the Preterist view must conclude that Jesus came in 70AD. Can you direct me to an objective sight which explains this?
One other thing. I still am not able to find much even when I google housechurch.org and, for example, Price. Can you offer any further help? I want to find the topic where we discussed Price before so I can read what transpired there and not repeat it.
I regret mentioning preterism. I had no desire to see anyone pursue it -- just an example of what someone was posting here, without mentioning where it was all coming from.
-------------------- Posing as an Ordinary Housewife :)
Email this page to someone.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
