How does a non-creedal people set parameters

[Ed Pettibone]

Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )

Ed: And Tim your confusion is quite legitimate, and while I do believe I could make a case for staying with Parameter, I would be willing to change to perimeter.

See:

Perimeter or Parameter? englishplus.com/grammar/00000288.htm

These two words are often confused, especially parameter for perimeter.

Perimeter, pronounced with a short i in the second syllable, means "the border or line around an object, especially a two-dimensional geometric figure." By extension, it can refer to the border of any area or any kind of limit.

Parameter, pronounced with a short a in the second syllable, is a specific mathematical or physical term which means "a variable which has the same value in more than one equation." Unfortunately, people will often use the word parameter when they mean "boundary" or "limitation," because it sounds more scientific or technical.

Sociologist Thomas Sowell writes: "One of the incidental examples of 'scientific' puffery is the widespread use of the term 'parameters' to mean boundaries, rather than its actual meaning in mathematical equations. What are usually called 'parameters' in discussions of social policies could more accurately be called perimeters. But of course that would not foster the illusion of 'science.'"

However In doing so I want to again barrow from the physical sciences and move into social science to note that borders need not be absolute barriers the may be permeable if you will allow the substitution of thought, ideas, and mental energy for liquids, gases, or magnetic fields as seen in this brief definition of permeable. "ADJECTIVE 1. allowing substances through: allowing liquids, gases, or magnetic fields to pass through.

And no, I do not want to get into a protracted debate with those who do not accept the term social science, at this point.

Edited to say: Also Tim, I support your reply to Bruce on his question about Jesus setting Parameters. 2nd edit to correct one letter in first sentence

[KeithE]

Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )

Can’t reply meaningfully in time available until at least late tonight. Short answer: Yes.

[Tim Bonney]

Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )

Can’t reply meaningfully in time available until at least late tonight. Short answer: Yes.

I will look forward to your answer when you have time! My short answer: No. What I have seen, both in Baptist history and in personal experience is that non-creedal church discuss, hash, and rehash their doctrinal issues endlessly even going around and around on basic bedrock theological issues because there is no "official" faith statement they can refer to even for the most basic doctrines.

At some point the group discussing an issue may come to consensus and write a document or faith statement but then, unltimately, there is no mechanism for enforcement other than schism. So free church polity often leads, and in my opinion most of the time leads, to division of the church into small and smaller bodies of Christians.

Just look at the larger splits among Baptists into the ABC, SBC, GARBC, Conservative Baptists, the CBF, the different Landmark denominations, and in most recent times in the ABC splitting and losing some regions. All of these splits happened because basic agreements on doctrine or structure could not be reached and then enforced.

When I was on the ABC General Board we went around and around on how to deal with the issues of homosexuality, made decisions, hammered out agreements which were all subsequently ignored or repudiated. Then the agreements were reworked, reworded, and re-hammered out and ignored all over again. Why bother?

At the local church level I've routinely seen churches or their members ignore their bylaws and do whatever they like again leadingn to division because no one can even make them follow their own rules.

I would argue that there isn't any way to set a perimiter (to use Ed's revised term) when no one will agree as to where to draw it and what its bounderies are. If you want to draw a circle you can draw it any size you want. But ultimately what makes it a circles is that some things are inside the circle and some things are outside the circle. Otherwise the circle has no definition. You can even re-draw the bounderies of the circle at times. But again, no lines, no circle, no bounderies, no definition.

[Ed Pettibone]

A lengthy list of websites which may or may not inform this discussion

http://www.creeds.net/

[Tim Bonney]

A lengthy list of websites which may or may not inform this discussion

http://www.creeds.net/

Good resource Ed. I wish the UMC link worked.

You might also look for works by Malcolm Shotwell who wrote about autonomy and interdepence in the ABC. He argued for interdependence which has been largely ignored in the ABC in recent years.

[Haruo]

Lots of good stuff in that Creeds link, but I note that its only SBC link is 1963.

[Haruo]

Also, under the Apostles Creed, I note this confusing pair of statements: "The Symbolum Apostolorum was developed between the second and ninth centuries. ... The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542)." So if the current form is found in the sixth century, what sort of "developments" were introduced in the next three centuries?

[Ed Pettibone]

Also, under the Apostles Creed, I note this confusing pair of statements: "The Symbolum Apostolorum was developed between the second and ninth centuries. ... The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius of Arles (d 542)." So if the current form is found in the sixth century, what sort of "developments" were introduced in the next three centuries?

Ed: Haruo, may we keep this thread on topic? I'm sure whoever created that list would appreciate the updates.

[Tim Bonney]

Hauro, that would be interesting research!

Ed, I've yet to see you post your ideas on bounderies/perimeters. I am guessing you and I may be closer on this issue then we were when I was a Baptist since I now support the idea of bounderies more than I used to. But I'd like to hear your take.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim did you see where I wrote I support your reply to Bruce on his question about Jesus setting Parameters. In that one you came very close to my position on this subject. But note a perimeter is not always a circle. Only in the ABC_USA would this be questionable. Can tell you haven't been gone long.

[Tim Bonney]

Ed: Tim did you see where I wrote I support your reply to Bruce on his question about Jesus setting Parameters. In that one you came very close to my position on this subject. But note a perimeter is not always a circle. Only in the ABC_USA would this be questionable. Can tell you haven't been gone long.

Ed I'd not seen the change in your post. No I've not been gone long. But I see a tendency in the ABC, CBF, the UCC and other congregationalist denominations do not really believe in parameters or perimiter for what is in and what is out in church life. For the most part this is because of such an absolute belief in congregational autonomy.

My own current view is that the huge emphasis on aboslute freedom in Baptist life actually contributed to the Fundamentalist takeover. I see moderates and liberals in Baptist life not wanting parameters because of a feeling that the parameters would be too restrictive. But by not having parameters this opened the window for fundamentalist to get in the organization and then move the organization in a direction where there would be parameters but they'd be fundamentalist parameters. So the way moderates fought against that was by crying "Freedom Freedom" instead of having a clear faith statement which would have declared fundamentalism beyond the pale.

In more structured denominations a liberal or moderate group would be more likely to create a faith statement which would exclude fundamentalism itself from being within the normal bounderies of the denomination protecting the moderate but connectional denomination from take over by a fringe group.

Maybe my ramblings about this don't make sense in this context. I realize we are in the ABC forum. But I believe boundless freedom actually harms moderate and progressive Christians rather than empowering them because it also gives boundless freedom to radicals who have traveled so far in one direction or another that their beliefs are incompatible with the original traditional that the denomination came out of.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Tim, in your post just above you gives us a lot of good ideas to chew on but right now I am in the middle of some thing related but not directly.

But while I am taking a break let me say i think you missed the point of my friendly "Only in the ABC_USA would this be questionable. Can tell you haven't been gone long. " jibe. Think about your "circle" comment, and Then Valley Forge.

Keep an eye open for a new thread here on the ABC forum Titled, Do we really want to do this? BTW how is your blood pressure? Right now mine is high and it usually runs low.

[Haruo]

"Perimeter" and "parameter" are two entirely different words. Please check which one you're talking about (all of you) and let the rest of us know. It's like "imminent" vs. "immanent", or "compliment" vs. "complement", or "there" vs. "their" vs. "they're", or "to" vs. "too" vs. "two". It's English, folks!! Spellcheck will not help, you have to know the English language (which consists of a whole lot of spelling-rule exceptions and arbitrarinesses) to get it right.

End of rant. Esperanto really is easier.

[Ed Pettibone]

"Perimeter" and "parameter" are two entirely different words. Please check which one you're talking about (all of you) and let the rest of us know. It's like "imminent" vs. "immanent", or "compliment" vs. "complement", or "there" vs. "their" vs. "they're", or "to" vs. "too" vs. "two". It's English, folks!! Spellcheck will not help, you have to know the English language (which consists of a whole lot of spelling-rule exceptions and arbitrarinesses) to get it right. End of rant. Esperanto really is easier.

ED: And Haruo did you note that 7 hours before your post above. I posted

Re: How does a non-creedal people set parameters

Post by Ed Pettibone » 06 Mar 2012, 08:45

Tim Bonney wrote:Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )



Ed: And Tim your confusion is quite legitimate, and while I do believe I could make a case for staying with Parameter, I would be willing to change to perimeter.

See:

Perimeter or Parameter? englishplus.com/grammar/00000288.htm

These two words are often confused, especially parameter for perimeter.

Perimeter, pronounced with a short i in the second syllable, means "the border or line around an object, especially a two-dimensional geometric figure." By extension, it can refer to the border of any area or any kind of limit.

Parameter, pronounced with a short a in the second syllable, is a specific mathematical or physical term which means "a variable which has the same value in more than one equation." Unfortunately, people will often use the word parameter when they mean "boundary" or "limitation," because it sounds more scientific or technical.

Sociologist Thomas Sowell writes: "One of the incidental examples of 'scientific' puffery is the widespread use of the term 'parameters' to mean boundaries, rather than its actual meaning in mathematical equations. What are usually called 'parameters' in discussions of social policies could more accurately be called perimeters. But of course that would not foster the illusion of 'science.'"

[KeithE]

Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )

Can’t reply meaningfully in time available until at least late tonight. Short answer: Yes.

If people realize that the “parameters” really represent an almost unidirectional permeable perimeter (or soft boundary), then they are not threatened by statements that may in other more creedal circumstances be instruments of excommunication. With this understanding, yes non-creedal denominations can put on paper (or online) an apt description of the perimeter that people will accept and generally follow. By "almost unidirectional" I mean people should come into acceptance by a church fairly easily but are not excommunicated or shunned as easily. I believe in an inclusive Church. In fact about the only reason for excommunication is that of long term uncooperativeness to the point of causing great divisions in the Church (which usually comes from the conservative side of any church being up in arms about something with great self-righteousness abounding) but could from leftists as well. In my experience most leftists (religiously speaking) just quietly leave a church instead of trying to reform it.

How’s that for an answer - an almost unidirectional permeable perimeter (AUPP).

[Tim Bonney]

Keith I like your desription of inclusive church and basically agree with it. But I really do believe that even in the most progressive church there are some bounderies out there.

In the most basic sense a Christian is a follower of Jesus. If you don't want to be a follower of Jesus, even in the most basic sense, then you aren't a Christian. That isn't saying something bad about you. That is just saying that by definition Christians are Christ followers. But by saying so we are drawing a line, defining the border, whatever metaphor you want to use.

[Haruo]

"Perimeter" and "parameter" are two entirely different words. Please check which one you're talking about (all of you) and let the rest of us know. It's like "imminent" vs. "immanent", or "compliment" vs. "complement", or "there" vs. "their" vs. "they're", or "to" vs. "too" vs. "two". It's English, folks!! Spellcheck will not help, you have to know the English language (which consists of a whole lot of spelling-rule exceptions and arbitrarinesses) to get it right. End of rant. Esperanto really is easier.

ED: And Haruo did you note that 7 hours before your post above. I posted

Re: How does a non-creedal people set parameters

Post by Ed Pettibone » 06 Mar 2012, 08:45

Tim Bonney wrote:Keith, I see you as being theologically progressive. Do you think that non-creedal denominations can set parameters that people will actually both agree to and follow? (And I really still have some confusion as to what "parameters" means. )



Ed: And Tim your confusion is quite legitimate, and while I do believe I could make a case for staying with Parameter, I would be willing to change to perimeter.

See:

Perimeter or Parameter? englishplus.com/grammar/00000288.htm

These two words are often confused, especially parameter for perimeter.

Perimeter, pronounced with a short i in the second syllable, means "the border or line around an object, especially a two-dimensional geometric figure." By extension, it can refer to the border of any area or any kind of limit.

Parameter, pronounced with a short a in the second syllable, is a specific mathematical or physical term which means "a variable which has the same value in more than one equation." Unfortunately, people will often use the word parameter when they mean "boundary" or "limitation," because it sounds more scientific or technical.

Sociologist Thomas Sowell writes: "One of the incidental examples of 'scientific' puffery is the widespread use of the term 'parameters' to mean boundaries, rather than its actual meaning in mathematical equations. What are usually called 'parameters' in discussions of social policies could more accurately be called perimeters. But of course that would not foster the illusion of 'science.'"

No, Ed, I had missed that. Thanks for raising the matter earlier than I did.

[Gene Scarborough]

Why do people hate narrow creeds?

Why do people even bother to mess with church when Jesus had no building or wealth?

[KeithE]

Keith I like your desription of inclusive church and basically agree with it. But I really do believe that even in the most progressive church there are some bounderies out there.

In the most basic sense a Christian is a follower of Jesus. If you don't want to be a follower of Jesus, even in the most basic sense, then you aren't a Christian. That isn't saying something bad about you. That is just saying that by definition Christians are Christ followers. But by saying so we are drawing a line, defining the border, whatever metaphor you want to use.

OK "following Jesus" would be one of the major perimeters/parameters/boundaries of any church (especially more progressive ones, since Jesus was a progressive, imo). But whose going to enforce that? Are we going to question that each time some member walks by a person in need, or retaliates in anyway, or fails the great commission? Those boundaries, if stridently enforced, lead to the sin of judgementalism which in its extreme becomes a blood bath to both accuser and accusee .

Now if someone persistently teaches others to ignore the poor ("for they will always be with us” as in Mark 14:7; ignoring Jesus’s clear actions, several parables, and ignoring Deut 15:11 where it adds “...therefore make sure you open your hand to the needy and poor”) to the point that it is creating dissension in the church, then perhaps it is time to boot that brother/sister out (if s/he does not quit by themselves in a huff and puff parking themselves in some more ‘accomodating’ church). But not until after there has been a concerted attempt at rehabilitating the dissension maker. Note: having a written perimeter statement can be helpful at that point, which is what I think you may be saying. (Not being a minister, I have little idea how often such situations come up). On marginal calls, err on the side of inclusivism ('in so far as is possible, live in harmony’), always consulting with our Consulter.

[Mike Stidham]

That would serve to explain why an earlier attempt to subscribe under my general username might have fallen by the wayside.

Just so you get an idea what I run into daily, here's the last 9 hour' new registrants, all deleted without a second glance:

ReefShoof Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Newly registered account -
Bincornsurn Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:34 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:34 pm Newly registered account -
Befclullyzolf Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:31 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:31 pm Newly registered account -
macuvnackd Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:58 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:58 pm Newly registered account -
ValoTooca Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:39 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:39 pm Newly registered account -
Utesytusakalt Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:22 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:22 pm Newly registered account -
soostaniarm Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:03 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:03 pm Newly registered account -
Arrormems Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:36 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:36 am Newly registered account -
goolleros Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:01 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 11:01 am Newly registered account -
mabcinacmd Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:55 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:55 am Newly registered account -
elaterediarne Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:27 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 10:27 am Newly registered account -
deromeolrm Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:20 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:20 am Newly registered account -
wmodsawayd Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:03 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:03 am Newly registered account -
nhgzvy Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:35 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:35 am Newly registered account -
statwheveme Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:33 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:33 am Newly registered account -
noberopele Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Newly registered account -

[Haruo]

That would serve to explain why an earlier attempt to subscribe under my general username might have fallen by the wayside.

Just so you get an idea what I run into daily, here's the last 9 hour' new registrants, all deleted without a second glance:

ReefShoof Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Newly registered account -
[...]
noberopele Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Newly registered account -

Yep. "Mike Stidham" stuck out like a sore thumb, crying out to be investigated, and then when I saw that the email was at an *.edu domain I had a hunch you might be real... Anything with a space in it sticks out, in a list like that. I hope the spammers never learn that. But I also hope the owner of BL.com and his techy henchpersons will have mercy on me someday soon and come up with a new way of registering that foils the bulk of the drug pushers etc. that flood the New Registrants list with monikers like "Christinawpf" and "buyboozeonline" and IPs in the Ukraine... Maybe just a simple captcha would go a long way towards saving me an hour a week out of my life... Bruce??? Are you there???

[Haruo]

Here are the usernames of new registrants that I deleted just now, all of which registered in the last 14 hours. There was only one whom I bothered to look up, and he (Kevd) also turned out to be pure spam, as I will show below:

infedummise, Breendangm, Christineovv, Bundimpaimi, bidsdiami, Breendavin, j1tdolsu2, Christineljn, EmponoumPug, Heerough, smichukv, Wendywrl, Irrimiascense, carpinteyrofam, Houlkvove, plalcherrvg, sernordipse, Sottthoug, Barpkeype, cahthiernhg, dixiehowley, Unconejodox, Whortmamatorn, UsaxapsHisk, bbsketcphj, outletaya, zhonghevi, jordanlhl, haruma4z, ripprirebeaug, LittrinyActiz, Eleanorepov, florejarrett, DeFdBEiFajAhfde, Wendylfj, Blanchekfy, isabellaenfriedaon, Gabriellejdd, Annabellemel, vesterblomme, accovacut, feteinfastima, opepsyEageply, uyxtcuued, Anastasiaxmc, Infodedon, Candancehme, Jennifernij, Tretretle, Gabriellevpf, insastala, feldawharmby, dejwitxyzsdaweq, carteyrosaa, biulaindktv, TanoAnaelmsam, MrPromotor, Davesmealuabs, Fredericaxrl, Reriloonerere, Corneliaicf, Rillioxotrula, Elizabethfui, Fredericamgm, AstodseditSet, Blumpemn, gtwebus, Evangelinexll, carteyrohwm, ImmabeStelm, Gabriellevpv, cypocogma, Hagmaslardlug, SkageDowaffok, Candancejhu, soseSwearie, clarcaskinsdfsfs, Eleanorectg, arerndred, Qualuache, mckevwspat, Eleanorewgp, BLINEEALKAKIT, Christinezzp, Annabellerxq, lftsdjgqdndm, Hermosafoq, Corneliaifr, LachNeagmamek, ertaytpfubxf, slamslotoum, Eleanorerik, Elizabethaeq, dtbeitit, Candanceuuk, jondgthon, lepCreedmal, carteyrolmd, Abigailfej, Alla7834, deantyGat, Corneliansl, cheentikike, Amumbefellifs, attella, webtibe, webnant, lujoveyuzw, Moxoffets, Mamssuiffiste, hrqicsduii, Blanchelqe, feegolipboali, Kevd, Suttoiwrrik, Abigailfvt, Annabellelln, Christineqdh

I only looked at "Kevd" because (a) the handle is short enough to stand out in the list and (b) I could easily imagine some naive newby named Kevin Douglass thinking it would pass muster as his "real name" per our rulebook. At least he turned out to be from California, not the Ukraine. But the email he gave was "getastyle100tr@gmail.com", which did not enhance my confidence in his humanity, and when I checked his IP on the spam lists, stopforumspam.com reported "108.171.248.250 appears in our database 5897 times"... So he got speedily deleted, too. Look at all those girls with three random letters stuck on their names. Almost all of them are in China. I truly pity the person who legitimately wants to join this forum but who doesn't understand how critically important it is to use a real-looking name, first and last with a space betwixt, and to try again a day later if it didn't work. I am morally certain that every week I probably delete a genuine applicant or two just because they used a handle (even if it's a derivative of their real name) that looked too much like all these Chinese chicks. Okay, I know, that's sexist. Some of the spammers use masculine-looking garbage for names.

[Mike Stidham]

That would serve to explain why an earlier attempt to subscribe under my general username might have fallen by the wayside.

Just so you get an idea what I run into daily, here's the last 9 hour' new registrants, all deleted without a second glance:

ReefShoof Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:49 pm Newly registered account -
[...]
noberopele Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:19 am Newly registered account -

Yep. "Mike Stidham" stuck out like a sore thumb, crying out to be investigated, and then when I saw that the email was at an *.edu domain I had a hunch you might be real... Anything with a space in it sticks out, in a list like that. I hope the spammers never learn that. But I also hope the owner of BL.com and his techy henchpersons will have mercy on me someday soon and come up with a new way of registering that foils the bulk of the drug pushers etc. that flood the New Registrants list with monikers like "Christinawpf" and "buyboozeonline" and IPs in the Ukraine... Maybe just a simple captcha would go a long way towards saving me an hour a week out of my life... Bruce??? Are you there???

My first attempt to subscribe months ago was under the user name "actionsub", which is kind of a go-to I've used for the last decade. So given that explanation, I can see why that first attempt failed. When I tried again, I noticed that most people used their real names, so I went with that.

[Peter]

Ed P
are you asking what a local church should be "allowed" (sorry, could not think of a better word) Or the larger denomination like ABC. SBC, CBF, UCC, UMC, PCA and/or UPC?

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Gee Peter, it is good to know you are still around.

What I would like a discussion of is, Can/should a Christian community set limits on who may or may not participate in their mission? Or do limits automatically constitute a creed.