Our Mission (Part II)
In Our Mission (Part I) [which I didn't know was "part 1" until Neil made a suggestion that led to their being a "part 2"], I proposed a re-tooling of our “About Us” page to better reflect what we at CRN.Info see as our mission with this site.
In this article, I will propose wording for the new section suggested by Neil, on how we are different from ODM’s/Watchdoggies.
_________________
How We Seek To Be Different
In Content
The Apostle John wrote about his encounter with a first-century forerunner of “watchdogs” named Diotrephes:
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.
Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God. (3 John 1:9-11)
Contrary to some misunderstanding, the primary sin of Diotrephes and his modern decendants is not one of tone - which very well may be an additional issue - rather, it is a sin of entitlement and gracelessness in becoming a self-appointed, hypercritical gatewarden to the kingdom of God. In light of this, the first two primary differences between what we seek to be and those who we sometimes criticize are thus:
1) When we see Christians being maliciously gossiped about, we seek to follow John’s example by calling attention to it and correcting the error, in defense of the wronged brother or sister and in hopes that the one doing the gossiping will repent. It is not our intent to scandalize disagreement and debate, but rather to end the gossip and slander and to set the record straight. We seek the truth, rather than seeking to simply use straw men and guilt-by-association and other fallacious tactics to slander and gossip about our bretheren in Christ.
2) When we see Christians being “put out of the church” (literally or figuratively) for reasons apart from unrepentant living in sin or complete departure from the gospel of Jesus, we again seek to defend the wronged brother or sister, particularly if his “sin” is a matter of secondary (or tertiary) importance - often matters of conscience or preference. This does not mean that we necessarily will find outselves in complete agreement with the brother and/or sister on all matters apart from the gospel of Jesus, but that we are to show them love, regardless.
In Policy
In Matthew, we read Jesus’ words:
Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
In this, and throughout scripture, we read about personal and community accountability to our words. In terms of policy at CRN.Info, we seek to differentiate ourselves from those we may criticize, particularly in this realm of accountability. This is manifested in three basic policies:
1) Attribution: All articles written will be attributed to specific writers. All comments will have a traceable electronic signature which we will make public when we believe it may be abused by those seeking anonymity. Anything short of this is cowardice, by definition, and contrary to even the most basic of journalistic standards.
2) Open discussion: We will allow discussion on all articles (though there may be reasons to close the “comments” section on an article after a passage of time or to quell an unproductive conversation that has devolved to name-calling or similar behavior). Anyone is allowed to participate, though if the assumed good faith in this arena is abused, we may put a user on “moderation” which allows us to read the comment before it is posted to the public board so that it is seen by CRN.Info staff and responded to in a timely fashion. We have not yet “banned” anyone, nor do we intend to. Additionally, we do not seek to be “yes men/women” to each other, and we will use this open discussion as a way to hold each other accountable - though in some matters we may choose private email for correction.
3) No deletion: We will NOT delete any comments or articles. While mistakes may happen, particularly with our spam filter, we will not intentionally delete any comments or articles. If the need arises, we may add clear “UPDATE” tags and section to articles or we may edit them to fix formatting/grammar issues. Additionally, we retain the right to redact profanity or blatant blasphemy from comments.
________________
Please take a look at this and make any suggestions, keeping in mind the instructions from Part I:
If you are intent on making snarky comments, insults or unconstructive criticism, I would ask that you continue to do so on the other threads you’ve likely graced to this point. To the rest of you, I would ask that you not respond in kind to these types of responses, but rather to just ignore them as if they do not exist, and let their presence alone testify to the character of their authors, in light of this request.
December 20th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
It’s good.
Do we have anything regarding when one of the CRN.info writers gets…out of hand? A policy? A mention that that is handled and not ignored?
Just wondering. I was thinking of that time you came back and wrote that sandbox post, and wondered if that shouldn’t be a permanently linked post somewhere, or have the essentials of it put some place with easy access: if we get out of line, we don’t let it pass without note. Or something a little more poetic and less Victorian.
December 21st, 2007 at 12:09 pm
God rest ye merry gentlemen…
It’s been brought to my attention that in Our Mission (Part Two) CRN.Info has said: “All comments will have a traceable electronic signature which we will make public when we believe it may be abused by those seeking anonymity. Anything short of this is cowardice, by definition, and contrary to even the most basic of journalistic standards.”
Could you please let people know if this conduct statement covers the behavior of CRN.Info contributors when they are on other people’s blogs? I’m curious because the Editor feature at CRN, used largely to simply place up neutral posts, is regularly referred to here as the “anonymous coward”, or worse.
And yet I’ve been told, Tim Reed of CRN.Info recently appears to have gone onto one of Steve Camp’s site here as “Team Awesome” and himself attempted to engage in argumentation anonymously? Camp happens to be one of my contributors over at CRN.
And by the way, that “Team Awesome” handle is nearly identical to the one Reed uses on Twitter. Yet in Our Mission CRN.Info has said: “Our challenge in fighting this spirit is in not stooping to the same levels at which it does to achieve its ends.”
Now I don’t agree that CRN has stooped to anything; however, if Tim Reed has in fact gone onto Steve’s blog anonymously, wouldn’t this now be in conflict with CRN.Info’s often repeated statements against being accountable and not using the allegedly cowardly non-identification which you so often say we use at CRN?
So I’m just wondering if CRN.Info can fill us in on the whole story here; was that Tim Reed of CRN.Info on Camp’s blog the other day as the anonymous “Team Awesome”?
December 21st, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Resend: The first time it doesn’t show this comment is even made it into moderation…
God rest ye merry gentlemen…
It’s been brought to my attention that in Our Mission (Part Two) CRN.Info has said: “All comments will have a traceable electronic signature which we will make public when we believe it may be abused by those seeking anonymity. Anything short of this is cowardice, by definition, and contrary to even the most basic of journalistic standards.”
Could you please let people know if this conduct statement covers the behavior of CRN.Info contributors when they are on other people’s blogs? I’m curious because the Editor feature at CRN, used largely to simply place up neutral posts, is regularly referred to here as the “anonymous coward”, or worse.
And yet I’ve been told, Tim Reed of CRN.Info recently appears to have gone onto one of Steve Camp’s site here as “Team Awesome” and himself attempted to engage in argumentation anonymously? Camp happens to be one of my contributors over at CRN.
And by the way, that “Team Awesome” handle is nearly identical to the one Reed uses on Twitter. Yet in Our Mission CRN.Info has said: “Our challenge in fighting this spirit is in not stooping to the same levels at which it does to achieve its ends.”
Now I don’t agree that CRN has stooped to anything; however, if Tim Reed has in fact gone onto Steve’s blog anonymously, wouldn’t this now be in conflict with CRN.Info’s often repeated statements against being accountable and not using the allegedly cowardly non-identification which you so often say we use at CRN?
So I’m just wondering if CRN.Info can fill us in on the whole story here; was that Tim Reed of CRN.Info on Camp’s blog the other day as the anonymous “Team Awesome”?
December 21st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
In a previous comment, which may have gotten caught in your spam filter, I am asking about an issue at CRN contributor Steve Camp site concerning the anonymous “Team Awesome” and it seems to involve Tim Reed.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Considering that I mentioned on this blog to Keith that a comment I left on his blog with that account is me, I’m not exactly sure how that would constitute an “anonymous” post. Nor did I make any attempt to hide my IP, which I’m sure both you and Ingrid have on file by this point since I’ve emailed and (where that ability wasn’t intentionally disabled) commented with both of you.
Due to the limitations of blogger I”m forced to hide my blogger profile because I have a blog made up of personal friends that we use to post all manner of silliness that amuses us. I do not want the unpleasantness you bring to everything you post on there. I also want to leave comments open and unmoderated. SO I have to hide where that blog is at in my profile which means closing up my profile.
Of course I could just create another blogger account, but that’s a pain, so I won’t.
Also, Ken, this seems to be another example of you breaking your word.
Not to mention the violation of Matthew 18 sicne you’ve not come to either me or Chris L individually. I fully expect everyone who has ever come on here and cited Matthew 18 to us to email Ken directly and call him to account.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Ken,
Ahhh the old, “You do it too!” defense… wont work with Jesus you know….
Yet, Tim Reed did link to his site… he just does not have his profile on… and most who appear here don’t even have that…
Also, no one complains about Steve having rules and Tim was reminded of those rules…
So even if Tim did this so what? Does that mean that Ingrid can “flame” me and then turn off the comments before I can even comment thus implying she was right when in fact she was lying with only half the story… which was the half that made her look good? LOL! Which you did with Tony Jones and such… oh are you going to give me an answer at my blog about that Tony Jones issue or not? Common bring on all that strong research that is now being called “opinions”… (must have talked to a lawyer yourself huh?
I think you need to grow up a bit out of the childish “you do it to!” age and put those childish things away and come to maturity…
iggy
December 21st, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Is there a difference between commenting and posting articles?
Neil (shoot - all this time I have been using my full name)
December 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
…and then there are the “blogs” that don’t allow comments, so those blog owners really don’t have any need to say anything about it, do they? Not their problem to solve.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Also, please note, this was in no way an attempt to be anonymous. This account is the same account I’ve always used on blogger. The only thing I changed was the settings for the aforementioned reasons. Had I wanted to be anonymous I have the technical ability to comment and post anonymously if I want to, down to the IP level. In this case I didn’t even bother to create a new blogger account.
December 21st, 2007 at 2:51 pm
No problems, Tim. Ken’s just continuing his adventures in missing the point…
December 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
This did make me laugh out loud - twice.
If the “Editor” posts are neutral at CR?N, its no wonder these guys scratch their heads over things like wikipedia’s police on Neutral Point of View….
December 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Chris L,
I am wondering if Ken even knows what a “point” is…
I also wonder if he wears hats… you know to hide… his… “point”.
iggy
Disclaimer: Note that was not a reference to “horns” as in Ken is the devil… it was a reference to his pointy little head… which is not a nice thing to state, so I am sorry I did… please disregard this comment if it offended you, your grandmother or pet parrot.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Neutral, not as in Switzerland, but as in Iran.
December 21st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
I meant to say I never use my full name… but as soon as my own blog is up and running I probabaly… too bad all the good names are taken.
December 21st, 2007 at 5:11 pm
“…complete departure from the gospel of Jesus”
Are you implying that incomplete departures from the gospel of Jesus are somehow acceptable?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Are you implying that the incomplete departure from the gospel of Jesus is somehow equivilent to the complete departure of Jesus?
December 21st, 2007 at 5:34 pm
WOW, so Ken (who seems to have problems with being dishonest, pride, poor research, arrogance and a haughty spirit) wants you regulate what happens in my personal life. Is this kind of like, “Wherever I go I am a representative of crn.info? Kind of like being in the Army? Do we get T-shirts? I buy clothing for my wife online, do I have to send Ken an email ahead of time letting him know or can I take care of that later? This means everything has to change.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Old joke; “a hypocrite is a man who is not himself on Sunday”
New joke; “a hypocrite is a man who is not himself when contributing posts on this blog.”
Julie in her last comment on the ufo thread said:
“(Yes. I broke my word. I came back. And responded. Lo siento mucho.)”
http://christianresearchnetwork.info/2007/12/20/evangelizing-area-51/#comments
Somehow Ken is a hypocrite by coming back to comment, but Julie is not? Much ado about nothing. But hey it’s Ken, we don’t need a reason to attack.
iggy said;
”
Ahhh the old, “You do it too!†defense… wont work with Jesus you know”
and then:
“So even if Tim did this so what? Does that mean that Ingrid can “flame†me and then turn off the comments before I can even comment thus implying she was right when in fact she was lying with only half the story… which was the half that made her look good?”
Nothing like contradicting yourself.
A friend suggested iggy is proof of total depravity. I agree.
Tim Reed what can one say? We want to act like three year olds but only with our closest friends.
http://twitter.com/teamawesomer/statuses/
Would anyone recommend going to his church?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Chris,
Perhaps you didn’t take Spanish in High School, but “lo siento mucho” is Spanish for “I’m very sorry”. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen that from Ken. That’s pretty much all it takes is a “I spoke rashly” or “I’m sorry, but I misspoke”.
As for Tim’s posting on Camp’s blog, it seems pretty obvious that Tim’s not trying to be “anonymous”, which is exactly how the “Editor” function at CR?N is used - to escape accountability.
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I am trying to allow for a level of disagreement. For instance, this would be not suggesting that most of Fundamentalist Christianity is not really Christian because they completely neglect “love your neighbor” and the kingdom of God apart from “love” being correction of “incorrect” doctrine…
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Ahhh Chris P I think its so cute the way Ken stalks me and shares all the information with you guys. Its kind of like I get to do a NakedPastor thing but wihtout putting any actual work into it.
BTW, I’m about to shower, so that should cure your Tim Reed fix for the next few hours.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Chris P,
What’s it like living in your world?
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Oh, and also for my own personal stalkers, Chris P and Ken Silva I also have a facebook, myspace and Amazon gift list.