Pseudo-neutrality & its enforcement

Question

From the perspective of a postmodern/pluralist worldview, there is no such thing as 'pure' objectivity / true neutrality (nor objective truth, for that matter). In effect, all assertions of neutrality are biases/assumptions in and of themselves. I get this. But I also believe that allowing biases to remain unstated (where reasonable) and attempting to ask/answer with no starting point is not attainable and only causes the site to acquire the assumptions of the majority, which in the case of BH.SE is currently Christian Protestant ideology. I'd like to see a pseudo-neutrality that I've explained numerous times elsewhere.

The issue comes down to how we'd like to see this enforced. I've even given an opportunity to the community for voting on this issue. What's the issue/holdup here? Community apathy/meta burnout? The community does not agree with the pseudo-neutrality presented? The community does not want to have a defined starting point? Or something else?

---

I've been asked to define "Protestant ideology." For the purposes here, I will define it as holding these assumptions and implicitly bringing them to each post.

Protestant Ideology

• The Bible is inspired by a deity and is thus free from and incapable of error (as Jon pointed out, beliefs on this vary. Some feel that this only applies to the original autographs which makes textual criticism fair game, some would apply it to an extant textual tradition/family, and others may even go so far as to state that a translation is the 'Authorized' or authoritative text).
• All Biblical texts are about (or foreshadow) Jesus (including those in the Hebrew Bible).
• The text applies to Christians today and speaks about events still to occur in the future.
• There is continuity between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament - one can be used to interpret/explain the other without defending the connection.
• Responses can be supported by 'proof-texting' passages from other Biblical texts (regardless of their time period and author) so long as they address a similar topic of interest to the post.
• The text (anachronistically) addresses later doctrinal controversies in history.

My Contention

Allow me to copy and paste what I've written elsewhere:

I am primarily [talking] about questions. For the record, my current thinking is that these standards should be enforced for questions (edit/close/delete nonconformity), but only encouraged for answers (answers that don't follow these guidelines might be downvoted but don't require editing/deletion).

I'm OK with these biases being present in answers (I bring them to answers on occasion as well) - I want a diversity of opinion just as much as anyone else. I just think that these biases should be stated explicitly when they affect one's interpretation/response (but doesn't have to be in answers - although part of this is also included in 'showing your work'). This could be as simple as stating, "I am approaching this answer from a Protestant Christian perspective." That is sufficient so that we know the general assumptions in the post.

But I don't think it's right to have a question that carries numerous biases such as these, because it limits responses and actually discourages the diversity we'd like to see (which explicitly welcomes Christian, Jewish, atheist, etc. perspectives). These assumptions in questions will make it clear than only Christian perspectives are desired (which is often the case here).

As such, questions should be written in such a way that a Christian, Jew, atheist, or other individual who takes seriously the process of understanding the Biblical texts will feel welcome to answer and will not be discouraged to do so because it is blatantly obvious that the OP is only looking for a response from a specific religious tradition (if an OP does only want answers from a religious tradition, he or she should ask the question on C.SE or MY.SE - not here).

So to reiterate, I'd like to require a pseudo-neutrality in questions so that this site can attain more diversity in answers. I would also like to encourage (but not require) this same neutrality in answers so that they are helpful to as broad an audience as possible. I hope this clarifies my intent.

Answer 1

Is Sectarianism Ruining your Site?

Shortly after Islam.SE left private beta, Aarthi warned that sectarianism was ruining the site. The trouble was (and to some extent still is) that there are clear lines in the sand between the way different branches of Islam approach their faith. To make matters worse, users used every disagreement as an opportunity to widen those divisions. Rather than "I disagree", people were prone to say "you are wrong". As ashes999 said:

If you personally don't believe in hadith, fine. State that in your answers, so we know where you're coming from. But do not troll other people's questions and answers and attack hadith. This is absolutely unacceptable. Islam.SE is about "Islam," not "your version of Islam."

At the time I felt pretty good about Biblical Hermeneutics because we had:

• a user who answered from a Sensus Plenior point of view,
• another user who answered using the documentary hypothesis,
• a number of Jewish users,
• at least one Orthodox viewpoint, and
• a number of answers from perspectives I couldn't readily identify.

As has been said many times in many ways:

A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members.—Mahatma Ghandi

Not yet...

I'm deeply troubled by the suggestion that we ought to achieve some sort of, for lack of a better term, purity in answers. The voting on meta on these important questions tells me and ought to tell you that this site is deeply divided. We have different understandings on how to achieve our goals and we very likely have different goals. If you care about the site's future, please consider how to narrow the division.

Consider, if you will how the above minority viewpoints have been treated:

• Sensus Plenior: gone.
• documentary hypothesis: gone.
• Jewish users: disaffected.
• Orthodox: disaffected.
• Aramaic primacy: come and gone.

Notice that the people who are gone hold minority positions associated with: Catholicism, secularism, and Syriac Orthodoxy. Several other views have come and gone so quickly that many might not have been noticed: Complementarianism, Dispensationalism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and King James Only. My impression is that many of those folks left because they refused to submit to a culture of intolerance when it comes to theories that vary greatly from contemporary biblical studies.

Now what?

Look, I might be wrong about what's going on. But the sense I've had since I felt so proud of this site is that some of us have targeted off-beat answers for deletion. That's really a lousy way to encourage the sort of diversity this site strives for. If you think an answer is dangerously wrong, downvotes are the most effective and least divisive way to indicate that. If you think that some of an answer is needlessly controversial, maybe submit a friendly edit would help the poster from being needlessly downvoted. But wanting to delete answers because they fail to meet criteria that not everyone agrees to? Well, that's a pretty dark path to head down unless the need is dire.

So let's have a touch of patience with each other.

Answer 2

What depresses me about all of this (except for Dan's writing) is the extent to which it looks to me like reinventing a wheel. People who set up and operate interdenominational academic institutions have spent decades learning how to structure an environment that allows respectful collaboration on texts across the various lines. Yet it seems to me that some people here stubbornly insist that the hard-won lessons of those institutions are trivial, and that you can just invite anyone to type in any old thing and, by the magic of the internets, all will be well.

If you want a conversation amongst equals across all the groups referenced in answers here, you need to set boundaries. Yes, you do. This isn't just a symptom of dry, academic, behavior. It's a means of creating a space in which everyone can contribute on an equal footing.

The onus is upon those of you with diamonds to do something to encourage us outliers to continue to lie around and not walk out. If we walk out, you'll still have a site. If you work hard at moderating it, you can perhaps have a site that is not 70% 'the spirit told me that ...' posts. But you won't have us. And once you lose us, and the site finishes tipping into the space of a particular set of assumptions, it's hard to see how it ever moves back. And perhaps you won't miss us. It will be Bible study at Church expanded over the internet. Hardly unusual, but perfectly reasonable.

I remember when this site first showed up as an Area 51 proposal. The proposal was, to my eyes, written by Christians for Christians. I vaguely recall writing a post to the effect of, 'OK, if you want to launch such a site, fine, but would you please label it accurately?' Now it seems that it's arriving back where it started.