This is a Civilized Place for Public Discussion

Please treat this discussion forum with the same respect you would a public park. We, too, are a shared community resource — a place to share skills, knowledge and interests through ongoing conversation.

These are not hard and fast rules, merely guidelines to aid the human judgment of our community and keep this a clean and well-lighted place for civilized public discourse.

Please bear in mind, the views expressed on Crosswalk Forums do not necessarily reflect those of Salem Web Network (SWN) or its staff. However, open discussion is welcomed as long as it adheres to our Terms of Service and does not serve as a platform for the excessive promotion of teachings contrary to scripture as understood by evangelical Christianity.

Improve the Discussion

Help us make this a great place for discussion by always working to improve the discussion in some way, however small. If you are not sure your post adds to the conversation, think over what you want to say and try again later.

The topics discussed here matter to us, and we want you to act as if they matter to you, too. Be respectful of the topics and the people discussing them, even if you disagree with some of what is being said.

One way to improve the discussion is by discovering ones that are already happening. Spend time browsing the topics here before replying or starting your own, and you’ll have a better chance of meeting others who share your interests.

Be Agreeable, Even When You Disagree

You may wish to respond to something by disagreeing with it. That’s fine. But remember to criticize ideas, not people. Please avoid:

• Name-calling
• Ad hominem attacks
• Responding to a post’s tone instead of its actual content
• Knee-jerk contradiction

Instead, provide reasoned counter-arguments that improve the conversation.

Your Participation Counts

The conversations we have here set the tone for every new arrival. Help us influence the future of this community by choosing to engage in discussions that make this forum an interesting place to be — and avoiding those that do not.

Discourse provides tools that enable the community to collectively identify the best (and worst) contributions: bookmarks, likes, flags, replies, edits, and so forth. Use these tools to improve your own experience, and everyone else’s, too.

Let’s leave our community better than we found it.

If You See a Problem, Flag It

Moderators have special authority; they are responsible for this forum. But so are you. With your help, moderators can be community facilitators, not just janitors or police.

When you see bad behavior, don’t reply. It encourages the bad behavior by acknowledging it, consumes your energy, and wastes everyone’s time. Just flag it. If enough flags accrue, action will be taken, either automatically or by moderator intervention.

In order to maintain our community, moderators reserve the right to remove any content and any user account for any reason at any time. Moderators do not preview new posts; the moderators and site operators take no responsibility for any content posted by the community.

Always Be Civil

Nothing sabotages a healthy conversation like rudeness:

• Be civil. Don’t post anything that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.
• Keep it clean. Don’t post anything obscene or sexually explicit.
• Respect each other. Don’t harass or grief anyone, impersonate people, or expose their private information.
• Respect our forum. Don’t post spam or otherwise vandalize the forum.

These are not concrete terms with precise definitions — avoid even the appearance of any of these things. If you’re unsure, ask yourself how you would feel if your post was featured on the front page of the New York Times.

This is a public forum, and search engines index these discussions. Keep the language, links, and images safe for family and friends.

Keep It Tidy

Make the effort to put things in the right place, so that we can spend more time discussing and less cleaning up. So:

• Don’t start a topic in the wrong category.
• Don’t cross-post the same thing in multiple topics.
• Don’t post no-content replies.
• Don’t divert a topic by changing it midstream.
• Don’t sign your posts — every post has your profile information attached to it.

Rather than posting “+1” or “Agreed”, use the Like button. Rather than taking an existing topic in a radically different direction, use Reply as a Linked Topic.

Post Only Your Own Stuff

You may not post anything digital that belongs to someone else without permission. You may not post descriptions of, links to, or methods for stealing someone’s intellectual property (software, video, audio, images), or for breaking any other law.

Powered by You

This site is operated by your friendly local staff and you, the community. If you have any further questions about how things should work here, open a new topic in the site feedback category and let’s discuss! If there’s a critical or urgent issue that can’t be handled by a meta topic or flag, contact us via the staff page.

Terms of Service

Yes, legalese is boring, but we must protect ourselves – and by extension, you and your data – against unfriendly folks. We have a Terms of Service describing your (and our) behavior and rights related to content, privacy, and laws. To use this service, you must agree to abide by our TOS.

Range of Doctrines

Why define a range of acceptable doctrines:
The Body of Christ is more than one denomination and bigger than any one theological tradition. A mature Christian must know what she or he believes and believes passionately. It is almost impossible to be well taught in scripture and doctrine without viewing the Christian life through the lens of one theological tradition, often as expressed by one denomination. These traditions enrich the Church, and each tradition needs the others to provide balance and generate the healthy tension that requires each tradition to rethink and restate itself to each new generation.

All biblical theological traditions teach the importance of appropriate and practical unity between all true Bible-believing Christians, even if differing on the many other less central teachings of the faith that distinguish them. The alternative is a divisive sectarianism in which each tradition denies the validity of the faith of all others and denounces all differing beliefs as lies and falsehoods. In so doing, they would disgrace the Lord, who said his followers would be identified by their love for each other. The ability to enjoy a deepening love of one’s own tradition while discovering an ever more profound appreciation for truth in other traditions is an essential measure of Christian maturity.

Crosswalk Forums, therefore, expects every community member to treat those believing what is defined as within the acceptable range of views below as brothers and sisters in Christ and to welcome their courteous expression of their beliefs. This is asked of members, even though every member with clearly defined personal beliefs will differ strongly with one or more of the beliefs defined as “acceptable” below.

No member is being asked to hold his or her personal beliefs less firmly or to refrain from discussing or even arguing for those beliefs when appropriate. Instead, members are being asked to model wise and gentle tolerance of and respect for the range of conclusions on controversial questions known to be held by those who are indisputably brothers and sisters in Christ. It is possible to understand how brothers and sisters in Christ can view as biblical and reasonable points of view with which one has a strong personal disagreement.

This policy does not preclude any member from expressing his or her point of view on these issues if, in so doing, it promotes the quality of discussion and is presented as a personal belief.

The definition of acceptable doctrines:

Evangelicalism:
Crosswalk Forums defines these doctrines and beliefs as “acceptable,” first viewed as such by “historic Christian orthodoxy” over 2000 years of church history. But the most immediate context for defining “acceptable” is “Evangelicalism,” which has defined the experience of Bible-believing Protestants in North America since the 1950s. While “Evangelical” would be the single most common description of the hundreds of millions of Bible-believing Christians around the world, in terms of Crosswalk Forums policies, it is the North American context of Crosswalk Forums’s staff and the majority of its current users, and not the evangelicalism of believers in South America, Asia or Africa that will serve as Crosswalk Forums’s point of reference.

Orthodoxy:
“Orthodoxy” is a somewhat broader designation than “Evangelicalism,” taking in those areas of agreement on core doctrine shared by members of historic Christian tradition that would not necessarily claim to be “Evangelical.” These would include conservative Catholics and members of the Russian or Greek Orthodox communions. Orthodox doctrines held in common by these groups and Evangelicals include the dual full humanity and deity of Christ, the centrality of the crucifixion in atonement for sin, the historical truthfulness of Christ’s physical resurrection, the reality of an eternal heaven and hell, and the absolute authority of Scripture.

Represents a range of NAE, Christianity Today, Billy Graham Evangelistic Association:
The range of views described below can be found in denominations and organizations that are National Association of Evangelicals members. They would be represented in the thinking of authors of articles in Christianity Today, and Leadership Journal, and in the sponsoring churches of every Billy Graham Crusade. They would be recognized as being well within the boundaries of biblical Christian theology by all the major evangelical Christian colleges, such as Wheaton, Moody, and Taylor, and the prominent evangelical seminaries, such as Gordon Conwell, Dallas, and Asbury, even if not viewed as “most biblical” or “correct” by the seminary itself.

The designation “O/E” or “O/Es” below is shorthand for “Orthodox and/or Evangelical.”

1. “Inerrancy” “Infallibility”:

Range of views:
Most Crosswalk Forums staff, monitors, and users believe that the Bible is “inerrant” and “infallible,” and happily use those two words to describe their position. However, within Christian orthodoxy, there is a wide range of thinking on precisely how the belief that the Bible is absolutely true and totally authoritative is articulated and how to resolve apparent contradictions in the Bible. Not everyone who prefers to describe their position with words other than “inerrant” and “infallible” means to challenge the fundamental truthfulness and authority of the Bible.

Unacceptable:
The forceful and sustained argument that, for example, the Bible does teach certain things to be true but that it is wrong when it does so, that the Bible is riddled with contradictions and is historically unreliable, or that the Bible is a purely human document.

2. “Prophecy” “The End Times”:

Range of views:
Many people of faith believe the second coming will involve a “secret rapture”, seven years of tribulation, and a literal 1000-year millennial rule. However, in church history, internationally, and within North American Evangelicalism, there is a wide range of views on the end times. These include the view that the second coming will not include a “secret” rapture (i.e., that Christians will just disappear mysteriously) and that there will not be a literal 1000-year reign. Also, while many people of faith believe that the nation-state of Israel has a special place in God’s plan and must have our unqualified support, many O/Es believe that the same standards of justice and human rights apply to Israel as to every other country and are committed to ensuring equal justice and consideration for the human rights of Palestinians and mission work among the Palestinians.

3. Homosexuality:

The bottom line:
There is very little room for discussion on the core issues on this topic:

The practice of homosexuality is a sin. Sexual activity of any kind with a member of the same sex is always a sin. Homosexual fantasy-driven lust is sin, just as heterosexual fantasy-driven lust is sin. But:

A tendency toward homosexuality and homosexual temptation is not sinful. Being attracted to members of the same sex.), though not a sin, is less than God’s will for that person. Practiced homosexuality has different and sometimes more serious personal and social consequences than other forms of sexual sin. Homosexuality is arguably a more serious deviation from God’s created order than other sexual sins; however, ultimately all sin is equally serious in God’s eyes, and God loves a practicing homosexual no less than he does a practicing fornicator or adulterer.

Homosexuals are human beings made in God’s image for whom Christ died. Homosexuals are not less deserving of our love and courtesy than other 'sinners" but, instead, are similar to the sexually compromised and outcast people Jesus made a point of seeking out and being kind to.

Range of views:
Views on what it means to adequately provide for the legitimate “civil rights” for homosexuals differ widely among O/Es. Most O/Es deny a biological basis for homosexuality. Still, some O/Es argue that even if some biological influence is granted, the cause of homosexual orientation has no bearing on the morality of homosexual behavior.

Unacceptable:
Forceful and sustained argument over the acceptability of homosexual marriage or adoptions; that the Bible does not prohibit homosexual activity, or that it does support homosexual marriage; that homosexuals cannot change and that it is discriminatory to argue that they can.

Name-calling or jokes about homosexuals, any discourtesy whatsoever to self-identified homosexuals, or advocacy of the OT death penalty for homosexuality.

4. Creation, “young earth,” Evolution:

Range of views:
Most Crosswalk Forums staff, monitors, and users believe that God specifically and individually created each species and that Darwinian macro-evolution is a lie. Many believe creation occurred over six 24-hour days between 10,000 and 100,000 years ago. However, many O/Es [including C. S. Lewis and most British evangelicals] believe that God may have used evolution as one facet of the creation of the universe and that the word “day” in Genesis need not preclude creation taking place over billions of years. An increasing number of evangelicals believe that the Big Bang is a more powerful argument for a Christian view of Creation than it is for an atheistic or materialist view.

Unacceptable:
Forceful, sustained argument that science has wholly disproved any involvement of God in creation and that evolution, if true, requires that God not exist or that human beings are nothing more than animals.

5. Gender roles in marriage and ministry

Range of views:
Most Crosswalk Forums staff, monitors, and users have a conservative view of male/ female roles, view husbands and fathers as having some unique leadership role in marriage, and tend not to be supportive of women serving as pastors. Some even feel women should not be elders or deacons. However, a significant portion of O/Es believe that “mutual submission” is the highest statement of male/female roles in marriage and that an accurate reading of the New Testament does not prohibit women in ministry and indicates their involvement in leadership at virtually every level.

Unacceptable:
Refusal of a female monitor to correct a male TOS violator. The argument is that female users should be more deferential to male users in debates or discussions of spiritual issues. Any theological convictions on gender roles are meaningless in Crosswalk Forums because all users are entitled to debate or discuss, to serve as a monitor, or to receive correction.

6. Eternal Security/Loss of Salvation

Range of views:
An astonishing number of North American Christians are unaware of how many other conservative Bible-believing North American Christians differ from them on this issue. Few differing doctrinal positions are viewed as so evidently true to members of each side or essential to a correct understanding of the Gospel. While Christian books, radio and TV programs are disproportionally representative of the “eternal security” position, millions of members of Pentecostal, Wesleyan (Methodist, Nazarene, Wesleyan) and Mennonite denominations do not subscribe to the doctrine of eternal security.

For the amount of energy invested in debating this issue, it seems to make very little practical difference in the lives of the vast majority of true Christians in both camps. Those believing in “eternal security” do not have a casual attitude toward sin, and are no less committed to a lifestyle of obedience. Those not believing in “eternal security” do not believe that salvation is easily or frequently “lost”, or live in constant fear of damnation. Examples that appear to disprove these statements can be found in both camps and prove nothing.

Both positions have, for several hundred years, pitted their most brilliant Bible scholars at each other, presenting the proof texts and arguments which “obviously prove” their positions; both sides remain unconvinced. Remaining unconvinced in the face of alleged proof texts by members of either side is not evidence of either their stupidity or disbelief in Scripture. For some reason, the Holy Spirit chose not to so inspire the Bible that it is unequivocally clear to all true Christians which of these positions is correct.

7. Spiritual Gifts/Spiritual Warfare/Revival

Range of views:
O/Es vary in their views on spiritual gifts from denying their existence since the age of the apostles, to viewing the practice of one or more gifts as a prerequisite for spiritual health and maturity. Many O/Es believe strongly in the existence of spiritual gifts, and even practice them personally, while having grave reservations about specific practices associated with spiritual gifts in some specific contexts. Many O/Es believe strongly in spiritual warfare, the existence of demons and their potential power even in the life of Christians, while being deeply concerned at tendencies of some Christians to view demons as an excuse for avoiding responsibility. O/Es differ sharply on the extent to which a Christian can be “demonized”, or influenced by demons. Many view it as impossible for a true Christian to experience internal demonic interference while many insist that this routinely happens in the lives of Christians.

Unacceptable:
Pressuring other users to practice spiritual gifts, to seek a specific supernatural spiritual experience, or coaching them in the receipt of such gifts or experiences. Offering of “words of knowledge” or prophecies to other users, or “praying in tongues” within the community is prohibited for reasons explained in more detail in Crosswalk Forums Terms of Service #16. Sustained and vigorous argument to the effect that any one manifestation of “revival” such as in Toronto or Brownsville Florida are necessarily of God, or necessarily of Satan are equally unacceptable.

8. Translations of the Bible:

Official Position:
Not all widely available modern translations of the Bible are equally accurate and valuable for serious study, but all are adequately accurate to qualify as the “Word of God” for devotional reading and personal edification. [Paraphrases such as Peterson’s The Message are a different category.] The King James Bible has no unique status in terms of its accuracy, value, or blessing from God.

Unacceptable:
Forceful and sustained argument that any one widely available modern translation is uniquely dangerous, a product of a harmful conspiracy, or alternatively, supernaturally accurate. Crosswalk Forums will have zero tolerance for the aggressive and disruptive tactics of a minority of lovers of the King James translation who make this issue a basis for fellowship with other Christians.

9. Military service:

Range of views:
A minority of deeply biblical Evangelical Christians called Anabaptists (mostly Mennonites and some Brethren) believe that Christians should not participate in warfare under any circumstances. Since their numbers are few, many Evangelicals do not know they exist and are shocked to find that they do. Christians who do not believe in participating in war are not, therefore, necessarily cowardly, disloyal to their country, disrespectful of governmental authority, or of a left-wing political persuasion. The minority who hold to this belief must remember that the majority of Christians who believe the Bible requires going to war under certain circumstances are not “war- mongers” or “murderers”, and may participate in warfare for noble reasons in what they view as the pursuit of justice. Both sides can seem to be discredited by extremists who distort the views of the mainstream of their movement, or who are more preoccupied with the political than spiritual aspects of these issues.

Unacceptable:
Attacking the character or motives of someone who differs in this area or denying that he or she is a Christian.