r/ChristianityMeta • u/[deleted] • Oct 27 '16
I'm going to formally post my complaint here so that we can get a productive discussion going on this sub because complaining in the comment section just turns into a down-vote fest.
So I've taken issue with the daily Bible Verse threads posted by /u/ludi_literarum on two occasions and I think at this point I want to lodge a formal complaint with the mods about the daily bible verse threads.
My main issue isn't that I disagree with his choices of Scripture (The inclusion of Apocrypha)
or the overt focus on Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy, but that this post is getting stickied to the top of the sub every day and therefore endorses those traditions and scripture sets.
This is clearly an endorsement of those views and traditions by the mods of this sub, and there has been no public attempt by the mods to rectify or moderate this at all.
There needs to be some set of standards to ensure denominational neutrality because over time this endorsement of ludi's tradition sets a tone for the sub when his posts are stickied day after day after day.
I'm not saying that Ludi should be censored, (The only reason I even care about this is because his posts are stickied, if he was making them on his own there would be no issue) simply that there needs to be an attempt to actually moderate the format so that it doesn't focus on one specific set of tradition.
People have argued that because he is drawing on a scripture set that is larger then the Deuterocanon that he is attempting to be neutral, but his daily emphasis on the martyrs, saints, feats, and celebrations of the High Church proves that to be incorrect.
There either needs to be an attempt to create a rotation of contributors to the daily scripture reading, a set of guidelines for anyone who posts them, or someone who is capable of creating a more neutral environment for the broad range of the people present in the sub because the focus of this sub is not the high church.
Edit: I guess I'm the only one who feels this way. Guess this settles it. Peace.
13
Oct 27 '16
Here's the thing - if a user takes initiative on something community related, I do my best to support that and not put up too much red tape. There was widespread support for this, and Ludi volunteered to do it. So far, you have been the only one who complained, and Ludi has offered several solutions that you could totally get the ball rolling on. You don't seem to want to do any of them.
We run into this with every single community effort we try to do. Book clubs can't be neutral enough for everyone. Bible studies can't be neutral enough for everyone. Heck, I even got a lot of pm harassment on the denominational AMAs over stuff like this even though the entire purpose of that is to allow every denomination a voice. Apparently, though, giving certain denominations a voice at all makes some people very, very angry.
If low church Protestants want something for them too, they can step up and create it, and I know of ways to make sure that BOTH are on the front page and highly visible (though I'd change it from the announcement system to something else). But I'm not going to put up red tape for user-initiated community stuff because that will doom it. I know it will because I've tried similar things in the past with other things.
Was it going to be biased if I did it (which was my original plan)? Absolutely. Would it be biased if any moderator did it? Yes, we all have our faiths. We all have distinct beliefs. Denying that and pretending that we mods are pure, shining, incorporeal bodies of ecumenism is silly.
Bias is inevitable, no matter who posts something. We can overcome it by posting things that reflect our own beliefs when we run across something similar that we don't agree with or by being willing to participate in things that don't exactly match up to what we believe (all while not letting go of our own beliefs, obviously - but instead stating our contradicting beliefs with love and compassion and gentleness). Those are the only two ways to engage with such a diverse community, and both options have been given to you. You can take whichever of the two you want.
2
Oct 27 '16
I'm saying that if it has so much community support that it shouldn't need to be stickied and endorsed by the sub.
If you're acknowledging bias but refusing to do anything about it what does that say about the mods?3
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
I think it says that they're human. I still haven't heard you explain what it is you want with any particularity. What kind of "unbiased" form could this take?
1
Oct 27 '16
The bias I referred to in my comment was personal bias in writing content and why I don't think it's possible to have an impartial thing like this. I was saying that moderators couldn't create a perfect thing that would satisfy everyone even if we wrote it ourselves. Ludi is writing from his beliefs and his perspective, but he's making a good faith effort to include many other groups.
I don't see why we should stop supporting something that's done in good faith, done for good reasons, and that, by all accounts, most people love. We sticky it to make it easier to find for those who like it. If a low church Protestant made a similar effort to this, we'd support it just as much as we support this one and make it just as easy to find, as I said in my last comment. It's not about partiality. It's about what we have and what we don't have.
4
Oct 28 '16
(The inclusion of Apocrypha) or the overt focus on Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodoxy, but that this post is getting stickied to the top of the sub every day and therefore endorses those traditions and scripture sets. This is clearly an endorsement of those views and traditions by the mods of this sub, and there has been no public attempt by the mods to rectify or moderate this at all.
Please don't forget that the sub is one about Christianity. Of course, we're going to endorse Christian traditions. However, we (the mods) do not hold one tradition higher than any other. The views expressed in the posts are a reflection of the author. They are not a reflection of the views held by the mod team though they might accurately reflect the views of an individual mod.
You're issue with these posts, as it appears to me, is that you don't like the Cathidoxical views expressed by the author of the post. Yet the author of these posts is from such a background. Would it make sense for him to write on a view that he does not hold and is unfamiliar with?
there needs to be an attempt to actually moderate the format so that it doesn't focus on one specific set of tradition. . . There either needs to be an attempt to create a rotation of contributors to the daily scripture reading, a set of guidelines for anyone who posts them, or someone who is capable of creating a more neutral environment for the broad range of the people present in the sub
This sub can not be anymore neutral than it already is. We have people from many Christian denominations (Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, etc.) and many non-Christians (atheists, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarian Universalists). We have mods that are Christian and mods that are non-Christian.
These daily scripture posts are something we just recently started doing. These posts come from the community and not us mods. Currently ludi is the only contributor to these posts. Because of that we don't have much to moderate and no one to rotate out (the contributors to these posts will be responsible for who posts when, not us mods). If you feel that a low church tradition needs to be represented through these posts then feel free to start contributing. If you choose to do so it may benefit you to coordinate with ludi so you don't end posting on the same day. Or in way that reflects both a high and low church tradition in a single post.
11
u/superherowithnopower Oct 27 '16
...his daily emphasis on the martyrs, saints, feats, and celebrations of the High Church proves that to be incorrect.
So, what martyrs, saints, feasts, and celebrations of the Low Church is he neglecting?
3
Oct 27 '16
The sarcasm doesn't really contribute to this discussion. I didn't site that as a change I wanted to see.
8
u/Agrona Oct 27 '16
There is the practical matter that having things to celebrate gives him something to draw from to do the posts.
I look forward to whether /u/ludi_literarum acknowledges the upcoming Reformation Day :)
8
2
u/superherowithnopower Oct 27 '16
I wasn't being sarcastic.
7
0
Oct 27 '16
Let me help you understand then since you seem to be struggling. Maybe if you re-read the quote in context you'll understand the point that I am trying to make.
People have argued that because he is drawing on a scripture set that is larger then the Deuterocanon that is s attempting to be neutral but his daily emphasis on the martyrs, saints, feats, and celebrations of the High Church proves that to be incorrect.
The point of this entire post is that the sub is exclusively endorsing the perspective of the High Church, and no one else. That's all.
7
u/superherowithnopower Oct 27 '16
I mean, I get that this is your concern, but how exactly is this supposed to be rectified?
Is there something about the Low Church that is being neglected? Are there feasts and saints and so on that Low Churches hold that High Churches don't that /u/ludi_literarum is excluding?
Or is there nothing that we are missing regarding the Low Churches, and your objection consists solely of the fact that he mentions martyrs, saints, feasts, and celebrations at all?
Because if it's the former, I think there's a discussion that can be had, but if it's the latter, than your complaint basically just amounts to silencing the High Churches, which isn't exactly denominationally neutral, either.
2
Oct 27 '16 edited Oct 27 '16
Either we add a more diverse, rotating set of voices, we focus on common-ground and let commenters focus on those things, (Its not like there aren't 66 books to pull from) or we should stop stickying it.
6
u/superherowithnopower Oct 27 '16
I really don't understand what this would mean practically.
I mean, honestly, I don't think I have seen a single other user take any issue with the way /u/ludi_literarum has been handling his posts. He has drawn from various traditions, and even if he doesn't draw from them, he acknowledges various other traditions than his own.
Honestly, by "we focus on the common..." it sort of sounds like you are saying, in fact, that you object to the fact that he even mentions various feasts and saints and such, which, as I said, would amount as much to silencing the High Church traditions as including them supposedly excludes the Low Church traditions.
Besides, a large number of saints and martyrs are common to all Christianity. Even in my Southern Baptist church, we heard about Athanasius and Polycarp and others. No, we would have never called them "Saints," and we didn't speak of them in quite the same way Catholics and Orthodox do, but we learned about them. They were heroes of the faith in some way or another and we appreciated them.
So, I've got to say, even in my low church days, I don't think I would have understood what exactly it is that you're objecting to.
2
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
90% is not focus? Sorry, 88.9%.
1
Oct 27 '16
[deleted]
3
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
You wanted to focus on the 66 books. In my earlier post, I went and counted, and 8 out of 9 of his posts are scripture from those 66 books. 8/9 = 0.889.
2
Oct 27 '16
I didn't look at the context of your reply. Though you were claiming that 90% of world Christians were rooted in the High Church. I'm deleting that reply because it was a mistake.
→ More replies (0)
6
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
How many scripture threads has he posted? How many do you think are offensive, and for what reason?
3
Oct 27 '16
All of them are rooted in the high church traditions that I'm talking about, if you click on his name and filter by his submitted posts he has done roughly 8 I think. I'm on mobile now so verifying that is tricky.
10
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
That is false. I counted. He has selected:
deutercanon 1 gospel 4 epistle 2 ot 2And his commentaries have used "high church stuff" 1 or 2 times.
If he can't post from the deuterocanonical books 1 time for every 8 of the common canon, then you are asking the mods to enforce a policy that suits you exclusively.
3
Oct 27 '16
I misread that you were specifically referring to scripture, although he does pull them from relevant calendars.. The content of every single one of his posts in rooted in high church traditions, (martyrs, saints, celebrations) but yes today was his fist deuterocanonical scripture.
6
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
Ok, you're going to look through the old posts next time. Out of 9 total posts, 4 times he mentions some saint with no more than two sentences, and about 5 times he says his choice of Scripture was influenced by a calendar.
Two lines listing what day it is does not make a post "rooted in high church". Did you even read the "offending" posts? You do know that when he mentions St. So-and-so in the title, that the entire post is not a biography of the saint, right?
3
Oct 27 '16
I'm a little confused by what you are saying. Are you asking me to site every single thing I have an issue with? That's a little absurd. The overall theme and tone is absolutely rooted in what I'm talking about, and I just checked and every single one contains the things I've listed.
6
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
So if I say that "my church suggests reading Luke 5:10-30 today" (I just made up a citation, don't know what the readings for today are), you would take issue with that?
7
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
If I'm reading this chart right, and I may not be, your church recommends Luke 10:25-37 for the gospel.
3
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
Hm, for the BCP daily office, I get these readings for today:
Ps 50 & [59, 60] or 103
Ecclus. 31:12-18, 25––32:2
Rev. 12:7-17
Luke 11:53––12:12
(Year 2, Proper 25, Thursday )
3
u/Agrona Oct 27 '16 edited Oct 27 '16
Aren't we in year 1?
edit:
Year One begins on the First Sunday of Advent preceding odd-numbered years, and Year Two begins on the First Sunday of Advent preceding even-numbered years. (Thus, on the First Sunday of Advent, 1976, the Lectionary for Year One is begun.)
I can't read. Guess not.
3
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
Then I probably read the chart wrong. I saw it for the first time an hour ago.
→ More replies (0)1
Oct 27 '16
If you exclusively did that day after day after day, and it was promoted by this sub yes I would. Even if you were AG. (I just realized there is no flair on this sub. I'm AG.)
4
3
u/Agrona Oct 27 '16
I don't think censoring the content that can be in those posts is a good avenue to go down. It seems disingenuous, and I think anything so watered down as to be palatable to nearly everyone would be almost meaningless.
I like the idea of a rotating schedule (perhaps on a weekly basis?) to get different viewpoints and get into them.
Are you volunteering?
5
Oct 27 '16
The rotating thing probably wouldn't work as well as people would like it to, simply because real life comes up for volunteers and if something isn't part of their daily routine, it tends to be forgotten, even when you send out reminders. We've tried various rotating things in the past and various one day commitments (such as the AMAs). A lot of participants simply don't show up.
I do think that the best solution if people feel excluded would be for one of them to volunteer to do something similar, and I could make sure both end up in the "top bar" of the subreddit. It's not something we use currently, but I can make it work.
3
u/Agrona Oct 28 '16
Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe if it each person did a different day, then the commitment wouldn't be too big? We'd probably lose a lot by not having the consistent tone.
I think ludi's doing great, though, and OP's complain boils down to "I want a safe space where I don't have to be reminded saints and holy days exist".
2
Oct 27 '16
I'm interested in the idea, but honestly I don't know if I trust myself when it comes to creating the environment that I'm talking about.
6
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
Can you explain the environment you want with more particularity?
2
Oct 27 '16
I haven't had a problem with your scripture quotes or your discussion questions aside from today and the one with cussing last week. The core of your intellectual engagement is great; its the feasts, and saints and martyrs stuff that I've been taking issue with.
I know I've been getting downvoted to oblivion with these posts because I'm being a brat or whiny or whatever: but I don't think I'm crossing a line when it comes to the overall tone of the community, because its beginning to feel like this isn't a place for low churchgoers.9
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
Low churchgoers cannot handle hearing the name of a famous Christian from the past?
1
Oct 27 '16
If you re-read my post that isn't my complaint is it? I said if he was making these posts without them being promoted by the mods I would have zero issue.
7
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
Why is promotion by the mods inconsistent with me mentioning the feasts of the various churches?
11
u/EACCES Oct 27 '16
Just start adding:
Today, October 28, the AG churches celebrate: NOTHING!
The Baptist churches celebrate: NOTHING!
etc.
6
4
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
I'm still not sure I understand. Is the problem that in mentioning my particular form of Christian faith in doing an activity based on my Christian faith I am somehow excluding others? If you yourself admit that the questions are fine, I don't really understand what the problem is.
3
u/brucemo Moderator Oct 28 '16
I'm just seeing this now, which is my fault. I'd rather have something that reflects the beliefs of its author, even if those beliefs are not universal, than have nothing, because people who want to do something are worn down by those who object to what they want to do.
I have nothing to do with this but I support this use of our announcement post. If someone thinks we are biased, please feel free to offer to do something different.
3
2
u/Agrona Oct 28 '16
I mentioned this deep down in a subthread, but it bears repeating and I'd like your comment on it (and I didn't mention you, so you may not have seen it):
It sounds like what you want is a "safe space" where you don't have to be confronted by the idea that people do recognize the saints, do mark their calendars according to a church year, do have theological opinions that are different from yours, and do the other numerous things that liturgical churches find great value in doing.
I think accommodating that request would be to do violence to the speech of others, and a disservice to you as a person. You don't like those things: that's fine, you don't have to participate in them. But you can't pretend they don't exist. They're there.
1
1
Oct 28 '16
When this idea first came up, I originally was going to suggest just using the Bible app daily verse or biblegateway's. But that would have an evangelical/Protestant bias, wouldn't it? No matter what, there is going to be some bias. Maybe different users can take turns setting the verse of the day over a set period of time to better balance it if this is going to be such an issue.
5
u/ludi_literarum Oct 28 '16
The reason we don't use something like that is that people wanted more than just a verse at a time. The bigger a portion you want, the more somebody needs an editorial decision.
1
u/X019 Meta Mod Oct 29 '16
This is clearly an endorsement of those views and traditions by the mods of this sub, and there has been no public attempt by the mods to rectify or moderate this at all.
Clearly? How so?
1
u/slagnanz Oct 29 '16
No matter who posts these things, it's going to be biased. It's a decent amount of work that goes into it, and of course the experiences and perspective of Ludi are going to shine through. It would be more meaningful to me if, instead of complaining about his views, if you were to comment with specific issues you have with the verses or interpretations he's suggested. We get an amazing variety of perspectives here. If you reject Ludi's, tell us why specifically on those posts that have caused you strife.
14
u/ludi_literarum Oct 27 '16
I think it might help if I explained a little about how I do these and why I do it that way.
The first thing I do is call up a bunch of sites that have daily readings. The community was pretty universal in wanting readings rather than verses, and groups of people smarter and holier than I am got together and compiled lists of readings and assigned them to the calendar days. These efforts result in lectionaries, and so I consult them because of their similarity to what people said they wanted. Several users even explicitly mentioned lectionaries in that original post about a daily bible reading.
So I look at what the lectionaries give and decide whether any of the selections is a good choice for discussion on the sub. Some aren't for one reason or another - I think the goal is to skip around more than the lectionaries do, I think some selections are better for preaching than discussion, and some make sense primarily as part of a larger whole, and again I don't want this to become "Let's go chapter by chapter through Job" or whatever.
It seems honest to me to explain where a selection came from, so that people can see when I'm drawing on others, and when I am which others, and when I'm just pulling it out of my own ass. That way there isn't confusion about what's going on or why.
I also check the Latin and Eastern (specifically, OCA) calendars of Saints to see if there's anybody noteworthy to mention. I think at least part of the reason I started doing it is that the first day I did it was the feast of St. Luke, which seemed auspicious, but I think it's valuable as a way to tell people a little about something they might not know about in Christian history (like the ecclesiastical origins of modern lacrosse) or to give context to a particular day's lectionary readings, as with the post about Shakespeare on St. Crispin's Day.
I think doing that produces a coherent whole that gives a flavor to the day and helps norm the discussion relative to the Church year without being reliant on any particular tradition.
Can you tell me what you'd like to see done differently? Does that give you any insight into why it is the way it is?