The Evangelical Universalist Forum

New Moderator & some clarifications about the Moderator role

What has being anti-trinitarian have anything to do with ianything? Thatā€™s a bit silly and a little precious, especially as the belief in the trinity will die a slow death just like ECT, free-will, rapture and other doctrines brought about by mistranslations and exposed by other historical contextual revelations. :question:

Well, thatā€™s debatable, but please start another thread for it if you want to. :sunglasses: Thatā€™s one of the few items we considered basic and essential enough to be included in our statement of faith.

Sonia

Alex, perhaps it might be useful if you could just clarify what you mean by ā€œ*anti-*trinitarianā€. Are you referring to someone who is actively hostile towards trinitarianism (somewhat like our friend, watchman) and against trinitarians, or do you include someone who simply does not subscribe to trinitarianism. I would think there are (or, will be) non-trinitarians who, although in disagreement with the tenets of trinitarianism, are not actively against trinitarianism and would otherwise make great moderators. I realise you might wish to exclude nontrinitarians generally from all forum offices, and well, thatā€™s the admins prerogative too. Iā€™m just curious, only because I tend to make a distinction between the nons and the antis (as I think we should; as we also should between nontheists, atheists and antitheists, I think). Personally (and irrelevantly as a non-evangelical), I think that an ecumenical and eirenic disposition should always trump the particulars of Christian doctrine.

Welcome, Matt! :smiley:

And itā€™s my understanding that the meaning of ā€œnot anti-Trinitarianā€ is just what it says ā€“ not necessarily Trinitarian or necessarily settled in a belief one way or the other, but just not ANTI-Trinitarian.

ā€œAntiā€ primarily as in: antagonistic, strongly opposed, ā€œTrinitarianism canā€™t possibly be rightā€, ā€œTrinitarians arenā€™t even Christiansā€, etc.

As the poll on members views showed, most are Trinitarian, a some are agnostic about it, some definitely arenā€™t Trinitarian. Weā€™ve had, & still have, some very valued members who arenā€™t Trinitarian, and I know all of the Administrators really appreciate their input. If someone is Trinitarian, or agnostic about it, they can still be a Moderator.

Thatā€™s great (presumably you meant ā€œnontrinitarianā€ in that last sentence). Thanks for clarifying, Alex (and Cindy)!
And congrats Matt!

Thanks for the support guys :slight_smile:

Iā€™ll try to do my best :wink:

And about the Trinitarian thing, Iā€™m one of those agnostic people, but I have to agree that hardcore anti-Trinitarianism can scare off evangelicals who are curious about UR. I know this from experience.
My first exposure to UR years ago was with L. Ray Smith, and his Bible-Truths site, which a friend, who was then looking into UR, had recommended to me.
Problem was though that Smith had reams and reams of pages about how bad the doctrine of the Trinity was, which I admit at the time I wasnā€™t as open to questioning as the doctrine of eternal torment, and he was so heavy-handed in his approach in general that it kind of disillusioned me and scared me away from looking any further into UR. :neutral_face:

If I had read something along the lines of The Inescapable Love Of God by Thomas Talbott, it may have been a different story, but cā€™est la viaā€¦

(Just to balance out what I said about Smith, I have a friend who thought of him as a mentor, and said he was a good guy, even though he was intenseā€¦ I say was because Smith passed away a year or two ago, from cancer I think :neutral_face:)

Anyways, Iā€™m questioning a lot of things myself at this point, questioning hell and the image of an angry, wrathful God was just the beginning, which is true of many universalists, but it is possible to believe in UR and still be considered evangelical, and thatā€™s part of what this forum is here for, I think, itā€™s meant to be a place where evangelicals who are curious about UR and open to questioning eternal torment and/or annihilation, can come and ask questions and maybe find some answers, while still keeping a pretty much ā€˜evangelicalā€™ mindset.

Now, granted, I donā€™t really consider myself an evangelical, or at least not as I understand that term (I tend to think of it as being someone who is both socially and theologically conservative *, though Iā€™m sure others would define it in other ways, some definitions of which I might fit into better), but I can respect that.

I think the general impression of universalism by ā€˜orthodoxā€™ outsiders is of a bunch of sentimental wishy washy liberals who base what they believe on their feelings and their subjective experiences rather than on reason and scripture.
Now thatā€™s a stereotype I myself might sort of fit into, and Iā€™m not ashamed of that, but not everyone does, and I think thatā€™s partly why this forum was started, to show that you can believe in universal reconciliation and still be an evangelical, you can believe that everyone is gonna be okay in the end, but still use your head and support your position biblically.
And I think thatā€™s important to show.

Though people like me, who are a little more ā€˜off the beaten pathā€™, so to speak, are welcome here, of which Iā€™m grateful, still this forum I think is mostly meant for evangelicals who are trying to find an alternative to the all too common ā€˜turn or burnā€™ message, find a more approachable and trustworthy God, but without throwing everything else out.

And I think itā€™s good that people like that can have a place like this where they can go.
I mean, I was able to come here just after reading Love Wins and as I was hesitantly beginning to search for another way of looking at things, and you guys were there for me, answering questions and encouraging me and helping me along the way, of which Iā€™m grateful. And though Iā€™ve gone through a lot of changes and am still changing after about two years here, Iā€™m still happy to be here. :slight_smile:

And there are many others I am sure who are grateful for this forum, and other places like TentMaker and the like, places where they can go and connect with others who are on the same kind of journey. Itā€™s a beautiful thing, I think. :slight_smile:

Sorry, looks like I got sidetracked :laughing:

Anyways, yeahā€¦ oh, nevermind, Iā€™ll just leave it at that, itā€™s a good note to end on :wink:

Blessings to you all and peace :slight_smile:

Matt*

Youā€™re a top lad Matt - a real top lad :smiley:

At the top of the page it says that this is ā€œa forum dedicated to Evangelical Universalists.ā€ Iā€™m shocked to read that you can be a moderator of a forum dedicated to ā€œevangelical universalismā€ and not believe in the Trinity! :open_mouth:

Surely ā€œevangelicalā€, in the most generous sense of the word, means orthodox Christianity, which includes at minimum belief in the Trinity! The doctrine of ā€˜who God is and how He savesā€™ (aka the Trinity) is the foundation of Christian theology.

Well Matt hasnā€™t said he doesnā€™t believe in the Trinity actually Luke. He said heā€™s agnostic about it ā€“ he finds the doctrine mysterious and unfathomable. Now the Trinity in Eastern Orthodox Christianity is indeed a mystery that discloses itself to a believer gradually over the period of a lifetime. I being old have found this to be so too.

Anyway a good moderator is not a gate keeper of orthodoxy. A moderator has to be a person who can be fair in keeping discussions on topic (in as hands off a way as possible), and also have the sweetness of spirit to defuse arguments - and of course have the ready respect of the community in the first place. Our good friend Matt has all of these qualities in abundance. If having a fully thought through conception of Trinitarian Orthodoxy were the only criteria for being a moderator many very unsuitable people would be appointed.

Mattā€™s appointment has a lot of goodwill here. Heā€™ll be great ā€“ someone can be young in the faith in terms of fully thought through belief systems, but very mature in the faith when it comes to right motive and a heart that accords to the spirit of love.
:slight_smile:

interesting you showing up just now, Lukeā€¦why here of all topics?

congrats, Matt!

nice to have a non/post/ex/ish evangelical having some input.
before Luke has an epi, i believe in the Trinityā€¦but iā€™m FAR removed from much evangelicalism. :unamused:
but iā€™m not a mod, so maybe that doesnā€™t matter to you, Luke :unamused:

Thanks for the support, Sobe :slight_smile:

I am most definitely a work in progress, and though others may say such kind and generous things about me, like you do, and which I do appreciate, the fact is much of the time I feel like a mess, I struggle a lot, I feel like there is more that I donā€™t know than what I do know, and I have much to learn, and I have a lot of room to growā€¦
So if I have anything to offer anyone, if I have anything to give, it is only by graceā€¦ but I try to take some encouragement in the fact that God works through broken people.
After all, what other kind of people are there? We all need help and healing in one way or another, if not in many ways.
Weā€™re all a work in progress.

So if I can moderate in any way here itā€™s just by trying to speak from my heart, trying to be honest and real and to be myself, or at least as much as I can be (I think we all have different personas that we wear like clothes, depending on the situation, but underneath are our true selvesā€¦ or something deep like that anyway :wink:) and encouraging others to do the same, and to remind others that weā€™re all human, rather than just a bunch of talking heads debating about and/or defending our various theological/philosophical positions.

Of course even in doing this I wonā€™t be perfect.
Like many of you guys Iā€™ve got other things going on that take my focus from here, as I do after all have something of a life outside the internet (gasp! :open_mouth:), and I am not some spiritual guru or anything, Iā€™m just a guy, just a flawed and fallible human being, and the same applies to all of the Admins and other Moderators and everyone else here.
Weā€™re all in the same boat. We all need Godā€™s grace and love in our day to day going here and going there. I know I do.

So I think what weā€™re here for is to hopefully learn and grow together, to encourage eachother and challenge eachother in mutual love and respect, to find a little help and a little healing, being channels for Godā€™s grace and love to one another, and even in spite of our human messiness.
But I believe God is at work even in the mess, and Iā€™m glad that Iā€™ve been able to be a part of it for these last couple years. :slight_smile:

Thanks bro :slight_smile:

And Luke, just to say, like Sobe was saying, itā€™s not that I donā€™t believe in the Trinity, itā€™s just Iā€™m not sure about it, which means that I am still open to it, at least as a concept.
I believe in the Father, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Spirit, but I just donā€™t understand how the Father relates to Jesus relates to the Spirit. Itā€™s all a mystery to me, always has been, and personally I believe that itā€™s not something any of us are ever going to be able to pin down into neat little doctrinal statements, no matter how hard we try.
And I imagine that the truth about all of this, how things really are, is more amazing and wonderful than anything we could ever formulate in our minds anyway.

And also Iā€™d venture to say that the theological concept of the Trinity isnā€™t really the core of the Christian faithā€¦ itā€™s an idea that was formulated over hundreds of years to explain the mystery of God, and even if itā€™s a good idea, itā€™s still just an idea, and one among many.
It may be at the core of certain theological frameworks, but that doesnā€™t make it, as an idea, the core of the Christian faith.
I would say rather that at the core of the Christian faith isnā€™t so much an idea about God, but a person who came to reveal God to us, namely Jesus, the Christ. After all, Christianity is named after Jesus. :wink:
With that said, as I said to Alex Smith in a private message:

I know this sounds as I am not fully convinced of Jesusā€™ divinity, and I admit even that is something I am not entirely sure about (to be honest, there are a lot of things I am not sure about) but really I think the argument about whether Jesus was part of a Trinity or not, whether he was God the Son or just the Son of God, eventually just becomes this huge distractionā€¦ if we focus more on defending certain theological ideas about Jesus, on either side of the spectrum, more than simply seeking to follow the way of Jesus in our day to day life, to live a little more like he lived, to love a little more like he loved, then weā€™re off-track I think.

And to be fair, I think this even applies to universalism. As passionate as I am about the hope of universal reconciliation, defending it (or on the flip side, eternal torment or annihilation, even though I obviously disagree with those views) isnā€™t as important I think as just seeking to relate to God and to others as much as we can, to learn how to live and how to love (and also to be loved, as sometimes receiving can be as hard as giving)ā€¦
Though of course if some of our ideas about God or about others or about life or love or whatever are keeping us from that, then we shouldnā€™t be afraid to question those ideas, I thinkā€¦

Anyways, we can always agree to disagree, bro, and perhaps we can find some common ground and agree on other things.

And as far as my being a moderator, I think itā€™ll be my job in part to try to see things from both sides as much as I can, and to be fair, and well, moderate. :wink: And in that Iā€™ll try to do my best. :slight_smile:

Blessings to you all, and peace :slight_smile:

Matt

What youā€™re saying would make sense for a deacon in a trinitarian church (with several people on the ministerial team above the deacons). But this isnā€™t a church, Luke, so the moderators arenā€™t deacons. This is a technical discussion board that also tends to have a lot of social interaction. Churches are more than that.

Weā€™ve debated a lot whether moderators should be trinitarians like the administrators. There are pros and cons either way. Obviously one of the cons is that some visitors will be shocked that we allow agnostics to help keep the peace and serve the other members. (Thanks for providing an early example of that so it can be addressed. :wink: )

If a moderator starts teaching against the Trinity, theyā€™ll be dismissed, since then theyā€™ll be acting against the purpose of the forum. Agnostic moderators arenā€™t acting against the purpose of the forum, and are serving in other ways.

the ā€œshockā€ is that people who clearly donā€™t want to really engage and just want to poke at things are toleratedā€¦not that people who have questions and admit to not understanding everything are promoted to an admin role.
if Luke actually engaged in discussions and didnā€™t just ā€œpop upā€ now and again to pokeā€¦i might be less ā€œshockedā€.

On tentmakers they stay away from trinity and free-will. In fact they have banned people for discussing free-will. I believe we should not be afraid of the truth of either and I believe their is great revelation to be had in study on trinity that will change everything taught today on the subject and my colleagues and I are studying some wonderful source material by some scholars, some from over 100 years ago with new incites into the language used around trinity.
One tidbit for example is that the original scholarly language used in the time of Moses was Scholarly Egyptian in which Moses as a prince would have been taught in, so it is likely the original books of the Bible were actually written in Egyptian first. As Hebrew did not exist yet. The first 5 books use ā€˜Elohimā€™ in a plural sense, because early Egyptian never had a word for a single god, only plural. So Moses used the only word available at the time which was was plural. Later books written in Hebrew did have ā€˜Elohimā€™ as singular. We could be attributing all of these disagreements and arguments simply because of language translation limitations.
I have no problem with our new moderator. I certainly donā€™t have the time for it. I simply donā€™t like censuring a persons ability to take part simply because their belief is different. Hey, what we believe is different from the masses. :mrgreen:

Watchman,

Itā€™s a private board, provided to us for free, by people who desire to reach out to evangelicals in particular. The purpose of the board is to discuss EU, though we do discuss other theological topics. That said, the owners are fully in their moral rights to set any standards they like for moderators. Being a moderator isnā€™t really that big a deal in any case. You too can help moderate the discussions by advocating peace amongst brothers and sisters. Who needs a badge anyway? Matt was already moderating and that is in large part why he was asked.

But regarding the Trinity discussion, it would work better if you started a separate topic for it or revived one of the many, many extant topics. That way everyone would know youā€™re discussing it and would feel free to join in and talk about it with you (if they want to).

Blessings, Cindy

VERY WELL SAID!! ā€“ anyone is entirely welcome (and able) to moderate in the most important way that God cares about.

There are certain stationkeeping functions, too, which involve having superpowers (in a manner of speaking) for serving the membership, but we want people of a certain character to have that power to lower the incidents of the power being abused. Matt has demonstrated heā€™s that kind of person and has been active enough on the forum for us to expect heā€™ll continue being active in the future, which in practical terms means he pays attention to multiple threads so if people are having a problem theyā€™re more likely to get some help.

Now when it comes to admin status, weā€™re getting closer to authoritatively representing the intentions of the site owners when they created the forum, so if the forum was created to favorably promote discussion of Christian universalism from a trinitarian perspective, it makes sense that the owners would share admin rank with people who are committed to that.

On the other hand, we decided it was okay to invite some guest authors on who arenā€™t all that gung-ho about trinitarian theism, and they get their own featured categories! :laughing: (And mod powers within their featured categories by the way.)

But on the other other hand, it would run against the purpose of the site for us to invite more than a small minority of such authors to have categories.

We also have a special rank called advisers who get to see some backchannel stuff and whose opinions we want to hear from, even though they donā€™t have mod powers per se.

So we do try to strike a protective balance while respecting the purpose of the forum as established by the site owners.

And here I thought love was the foundation of Christian theology. More and more these days Iā€™m convinced that false religion seeks to undermine love, making things important that really arenā€™t. Iā€™m starting to think Iā€™m less and less an evangelical, but Iā€™m ok with that.

Congratulations, Matt! Iā€™m glad there are people, like you, that are willing to give of their time. Iā€™m not able to contribute much, but I really enjoy the stimulating thought here.

Amen :slight_smile: Aye, I believe Jesus is at the core of Christian theology, and what was Jesus all about?
Love, which of course makes love the foundation. :slight_smile:
And the Bible says God is Love, so that adds some weight. :wink:
And I totally agree that any way of thinking that denigrates love to a secondary issue is way off the mark.
And yeah, I donā€™t think we have to be evangelicals, whatever that may meanā€¦ I think we just need to be ourselves, whoever God made us to be. :wink:

Thanks Amy and blessings to you :slight_smile:

:slight_smile: