User talk:Graham grove/Archive 1
Hi Graham (my name also happens to be Graham), I was just reading through some of the articles and I notice that frequently in the articles you write you use first person voice liberally. Not that I object to this in general, it's definitely a great tool for communicating Christian truth. However, since this is an Encyclopedia, perhaps we should consider using a more objective (third person) voice as much as possible? In articles and opinions, of course, first person is entirely acceptable. But in the more historical and factual entries, I wonder whether the first person voice comes off as scholarly or merely as "preachy," thus turning off potential believers and causing WikiChristian to be viewed as "just another evangelist website." Again, not that I object to your writing style in general, I think you're doing a great thing by devoting so much of your time to this project! Avertist 09:07, 23 Apr 2005 (PDT)
Hi Avertis. I've really enjoyed learning from your articles. You're doing a great job.
It's quite true that I do write opinions often. I try to make it clear that it is an opinion - which is why I write my name next to the article - so that a user can skip stuff I write if they don't want to read opinions, or so they can click on my name and read my background and understand my biases. You're also right in saying that using the first person doesn't always come off as scholarly. But when discussing Christianity, does it always have to be scholarly? Can experience or a testimony or even just a gut feeling be as worthwhile?
I guess I disagree with you on one point. You say that this is an Encyclopedia. My hope is that this is not only an encyclopedia - if it were only an encyclopedia then why not just write in Wikipedia? I hope this is a place where people can write their views and opinions including their understanding of history. The way I am going to write about about the Reformation is probably going to be quite different than the way a Roman Catholic would write about the Reformation, or again different from the way an atheist would write about it. Although there are historical facts involved, I think there will usually be a slant in one direction or another. I think it is best to allow multiple articles on the history of the reformation (or any other topic). Perhaps there should be the main article that is dry and factual only, but I think it is fine also for there to be lots of other articles which tend to have a slant in one way or another. Sometimes that will be "preachy" but hopefully at least it will be open for dialogue, discussion and rebuttal. I also don't think making this a purely factual Encyclopedia is likely to help brng people to Christ. Maybe I'm wrong - I'd be interested to know if anyone has been significantly drawn to Jesus by looking up information about Christianity on wikipedia.
If you look at the baptism page you'll see that I've written an article there which is clearly my own opinion. Obviously there will be people who have different opinions on this topic. I think it would be great if other people add links for new articles where they can explain their alternate views. Even the writer of Easton's Bible Dictionary is pretty biased (and this is supposed to be a dictionary which I would imagine shouldn't be biased). If you read Bible Dictionary: Baptism you'll see that there is clearly a particular point being pushed.
What you say is important though. I shouldn't be writing things that turn people away from Christ - I guess what I want to do is write things that say what I believe and challenge people to think about what they believe - be it the same or different from my belief. Sometimes I fail at that task. If you let me know which comments I make in which articles that are specifically preachy and that you think would really offend people, let me know and I'll try and fix them up.
Your brother in Christ,
Graham Grove
Hi Graham, I worry that I may have overstated the problem in my first post. In the vast majority of your articles I don't see anything to worry about. But take, for instance, in the conclusion section of An overview of the main denominations and the history of the Christian Church (By G.G.). The rest of the article is mostly factual, but the conclusion is definitely composed mostly of opinion. It's an opinion I share completely, so I'm not objecting to the content of it, but it seems to me that the best place for that section would be in a separate article discussing your opinion on the unity of the Church, etc. And though it does not sound particularly preachy to me, I can almost guarantee you that some of my atheist/agnostic friends would read it as trying to "explain away" the "fact" that Christianity just "can't figure itself out," or something to that effect. Would minor reorganizations like this actually convert them? Probably not, but it would remove that small objection they may have.
I completely agree that Wikichristian should be much more than a dry encyclopedia; my concern is that the division between fact and opinion might become blurred if we are not careful about this. Avertist 00:26, 24 Apr 2005 (PDT)
