Comments on Chad W. L. Whitacre: The Constitution of Christian Minimalism

So moved. Do I have a second?

2008-11-20T15:38:00.000-05:00

So moved. Do I have a second?

should we move this conversation to fmr?I like the...

2008-11-20T14:04:00.000-05:00

should we move this conversation to fmr?

I like the "implicit" strategy. Given xmin is a denomination of christianity: belief in Jesus is implicit. What else is implicit?

Would christians with differing views of liturgy, baptism, and sacrements be excluded from xmin?

There's a fine line here, because answering that "...

2008-11-20T11:26:00.000-05:00

There's a fine line here, because answering that "why?" question is a slippery slope. The Roman Catholic Church has thousands of pages that are basically answering that question.

My thought with the XMin constitution was to bring in a very small set of doctrines and documents, as implicitly as possible. The explication of those doctrines happens on the interpersonal level. The XMin FAQ is all interpersonal. This constitution is one notch up.

Put another way: this document is a conversation-starter. The conversation should happen on the interpersonal level.

So the questions as I see them are: what is the set of things that are implicit here? What needs to be added or removed from that set?

But before that, what do you think of the "implicit" strategy?

the constitution is close by not quite close enoug...

2008-11-20T10:18:00.000-05:00

the constitution is close by not quite close enough. i can't put my finger on what is missing, but i think it has something to do with filling in "doctrine gaps."

for example: Why must we be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Why is communion to be done as it is described?

i agree with these parts of the constitution, but further explanation is needed.