About
Christian Internet Resources is free to use, download, and distribute.
Use
When users reference items on the website, we recommend adding date accessed to accommodate additions and updates. The possibility of updating, in fact, provides one advantage the internet medium has over print form, which usually becomes unavailable in a short time. We intend to make these materials available long-term.
We have spelled out the full names of Bible books. That means typing the full name of a reference in the Search Box at the beginning should bring up every occasion that text appears in the system. If that creates an overload, we may have to work out another way to get at the texts of interest.
On doctrinal and practical topics, users do well to start with “Interpersonalism” under the TOPICS zone, particularly “Bases for Interpersonalism” and “Characteristics of Interpersonalism.” Those are followed by descriptions of some ways the IP starting point impacts a host of topics.
At least eventually, some materials will be in more than one form. Look for them, for example, under the BOOK FORM section: Christian Doctrine, Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Basic Christianity; COURSE FORM, and AUDIO FORM. Some of these zones will be null till we can get more of the project in place. If title has #1 or #2 (or #3), the number sign indicates that the essay appears elsewhere also and can be accessed by typing the title in the main search box with an alternate number (as #2 or #1, etc.).
The individual essays may repeat their content somewhat because they were written for class presentation, scholarly meetings, and as treatments of subject for individuals over time. We have used + with the title of essays deemed more adequate for the subjects they treat.
Nature
Levels. Articles vary in breadth, depth, and length because we want to make them applicable to varying circumstances of personal need and ministry use. The goal is to present matters either in introductory (L1), intermediate (L2), or more advanced form (L3), frequently in more than one level. L1, etc., will appear on the computer titles of separate documents; such indicators will not show on the essay titles themselves. Quite a number of articles contain a précis at the front of more in-depth studies. L3 may very well involve biblical languages or require certain preunderstandings to be useful, although we in mind to make more advanced studies useful to general audiences as best we can.
A prominent feature of CIR is its position papers. They are not what we would normally call scholarly because they do not interact with current writers in detail or survey current literature on topics addressed. That downside may have an upside by not getting dated; they handle what amounts to spin-offs of longstanding ideas anyway. What counts more than who or when.
CIR has largely dispensed with labeling in a high percentage of cases because labeling creates the possibility of mistakes at two levels—mistakes on the issues themselves plus mistakes on the “take” some labeled individual, tradition, or school of thought has on the issues. Individuals within a group do not always subscribe to everything associated with that group or may hold opinions not normally found under that label. Those incongruities may bear on their viewpoints on given topics. That second level has minimal matter anyway. So the second source of error can be largely avoided. Readers can also better evaluate what they are reading aside from their own biases fostered by traditional labels.
One author stands behind CIR. That is meant to enhance consistency and create a systematic theology in website form. It is conceptually unified by appealing first of all to the characteristics of persons and the relationships between them—relational religion. Our conviction is that interpersonalism sets the character of the Christian worldview, which establishes the context for its parts, and applies the principle of interpreting the specific in light of the general. Loosely speaking, interpersonalism (driven by influence) contrasts with legalism (driven by authority), physical nature (driven by force), and metaphysics (driven by form).
In topical zones especially (TOPICS, CHRISTIAN LIVING), CIR works at presenting in top-down format. Consequently, for clarity, efficiency, and interest, we often deal with subjects deductively, starting with the interpersonal context. Specific conclusions do not just grow up inductively from assembled particulars but descend from an established framework previously arrived at from basic particulars already assembled. Besides, arriving at conclusions (particular upward scholarship) can be the opposite of presenting them to other people (general down education). That procedure underlies the recommendation above under Use ¶ 3.
Truth First, Best First
We aim to use a truth-first format—of course, as we see it for reasons given; then come any alternatives with their pros and cons. Furthermore, we have endeavored to structure the presentations in best-first format, followed by confirmatory evidence, that is, evidence that is not conclusive because it could be taken variously. The procedure applies the principle of interpreting the unclear in light of the clear and assumes the harmony of scripture.
These essays were written over decades of time for various audiences and uses; consequently, there is a certain amount of crossover, and some repetition within certain categories. Eventually we may be able to streamline these treatments away from such repeats, but for now users can choose which ones deal with their subjects most usefully for each reader.Naturally, then, we have tried to apply the Golden Rule by avoiding pejorative language for foreign understandings and hyping support for espoused ones. Hyping support includes claiming majority conviction, long-standing viewpoint, a valued person’s or tradition’s opinion, or some cutesy slogan. We assume first that people honestly believe and practice what they do. If not, whatever we would offer in hyped support would be irrelevant anyway.
A prominent feature of CIR is its position papers. They are not what we would normally call scholarly because they do not interact with current writers in detail or survey current literature on topics addressed. That downside may have an upside by not getting dated; they handle what amounts to spin-offs of longstanding ideas anyway. What counts more than who or when.
CIR has largely dispensed with labeling in a high percentage of cases because labeling creates the possibility of mistakes at two levels—mistakes on the issues themselves plus mistakes on the “take” some labeled individual, tradition, or school of thought has on the issues. Individuals within a group do not always subscribe to everything associated with that group or may hold opinions not normally found under that label. Those incongruities may bear on their viewpoints on given topics. That second level has minimal matter anyway. So the second source of error can be largely avoided. Readers can also better evaluate what they are reading aside from their own biases fostered by traditional labels.
One author stands behind CIR. That is meant to enhance consistency and create a systematic theology in website form. It is conceptually unified by appealing first of all to the characteristics of persons and the relationships between them—relational religion. Our conviction is that interpersonalism sets the character of the Christian worldview, which establishes the context for its parts, and applies the principle of interpreting the specific in light of the general. Loosely speaking, interpersonalism (driven by influence) contrasts with legalism (driven by authority), physical nature (driven by force), and metaphysics (driven by form).
In topical zones especially (TOPICS, CHRISTIAN LIVING), CIR works at presenting in top-down format. Consequently, for clarity, efficiency, and interest, we often deal with subjects deductively, starting with the interpersonal context. Specific conclusions do not just grow up inductively from assembled particulars but descend from an established framework previously arrived at from basic particulars already assembled. Besides, arriving at conclusions (particular upward scholarship) can be the opposite of presenting them to other people (general down education). That procedure underlies the recommendation above under Use ¶ 3.