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.
4) Accountability: We will hold each other to the standards we would expect from those we disagree with. While this may be conducted through private email, if an offense is egregious, we may also communicate within the comments of our posts.
In Tone and Character
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. – Proverbs 15:1
The wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. – James 3:17
Due to the limitations of communication via the internet it is easy for misunderstanding to occur, for disagreements to escalate, for sarcasm and condescension to be employed, for argument on issues to become personal. We write things to others that we would never say in person.
Therefore while we defend those who are being attacked falsely, we will strive to take the high-road in dialogue at all time and to this end Posters and Commenters on this site are expected to:*
- refrain from using terms of condescension
- respond to arrogance and anger with a gentle answer
- not escalate the level of rhetoric or anger
- defend your argument, not yourself
- remember that in pursuing the purity of the wisdom that comes from above – do so in a peaceable manner.
*This list is not intended to be exhaustive but serve as examples of the tendencies and how we should strive to overcome them.
