Amendment of Rules Poll

[Wigglesworth]

I drafted a proposal for amended rules that includes suggestions from a recent thread on amending the rules to address Old Catholics, the ICCEC, some Anglicans that weren't addressed specifically, and the subject which shall not be mentioned. If it's considered generally acceptable after a vote, maybe the managment will pronounce it as dogma.

THE PROPOSAL - Modifications or additions are printed in bold italics. The rest is found in the current rules.

**********


1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) This forum is intended for people who self-identify as Anglicans (including Episcopalians), including all those in communion with the See of Canterbury, and other churches of the Anglican Tradition, such as the TAC, the Reformed Episcopal Church and AMiA, and churches sharing in the Anglican Tradition, such as the ICCEC. This forum also includes Old Catholics, including the Utrecht Union of Old Catholic Churches and those churches of the Old Catholic tradition not in communion with Utrecht.

The Anglican church in its historic and formative liturgy frequently refers to itself as Catholic, and considers itself as continuing the Historic Episcopate in the Apostolic Succession. Although there are varying definitions of what "catholic" is, in this forum the term is understood to include the Anglican church. Visitors should note that the Anglican Church considers itself to be a legitimate continuation of the original Church founded by Christ, and refrain from suggesting that the Anglican Church is characterized by schism or innovation. In short, if you have a problem with Anglicans considering themselves as "Catholic" or as a part of the Apostolic Succession, say it somewhere else, not here -- or have the charity not to say it at all.

3) Anglican and Old Catholic Christian members can post fellowship threads here as well as debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own Church and other denominations, as long as they are within our rules.

4) Christian members who are neither Anglicans nor Old Catholics may post openly in terms of fellowship, and are free to ask questions. However, they shall not debate.

5) Only an Anglican moderator, or a sympathetic moderator who volunteers to man the forum and is so assigned, can moderate posts in this forum.

6) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination or Christian group including Protestant denominations will be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned. In particular, this includes posts from those outside Anglican churches which condemn an Anglican church's official actions.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine are allowed. Accusations are not.

Basically, try to phrase your question and post so that it does not come across as being judgmental and accusatory. You will find that the message gets across better, and the debate will remain civil.

7) There shall be no discussion or debate about homosexuality, or about the validity or propriety of the way any denomination or church addresses homosexuality. A special area has been set up in General Theology, where members of the same church can discuss these issues. Any threads discussing these issues will be moved into the appropriate subforum in General Theology.

8) Feel free to report posts that you believe have broken these rules to the moderators of this forum by clicking on the "Report" link at the bottom of each post.

[pmcleanj]

Understand, though, that the only vote that counts, ultimately, is Erwin's. I will take the suggestions to him provided that they get substantive approval here.

[Wigglesworth]

Absolutely. We must remain in submission to legitimate digital authority. We are all guests here, after all.

[TomUK]

Consider me voted!

[benedictine]

benedictine votes Aye!

[Colabomb]

aye

[UberLutheran]

Post removed.

[Colabomb]

Because of the agreement between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) in Called to Common Mission, where the two groups are now in full communion, share resources (including financial resources and clergy), and where the ELCA has agreed to follow the apostolic succession (including having an Episcopal bishop in attendance at the ordination of all Lutheran pastors and bishops, including the laying on of hands of said Lutheran pastors and bishops being ordained) -- would members of the ELCA who are in agreement with and accept Called to Common Mission be considered full members of this forum (including debate)?

The discussions over here are a lot more fun here than over on the Lutheran board, and I feel like I have a lot more in common with you over here than I do with the LCMS and WELS folks over there. Discussions with LCMS and WELS members about "why ELCA members are 'heterodox'", and "Why ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson isn't a real bishop" (because he tries to get other groups to dialogue and communicate with the ELCA), and "why the Eucharist at my church isn't valid" (because it's administered by our pastor, who is a woman) irritate me to the point of apoplexy!
You will still have arguements over the ordination of women. I personally stand against it based on Tradition and Scripture. That topic gets just as hot over here, so you really would not be escaping the topic. I am frustrated by many Anglicans here, but it is their board as well as mine so I attempt to practice Christian Patience.

To answer your question more directly...

This is the Anglican Forum. We allow Old Catholics to use it as there are not a lot of Old Catholics. But there is a Lutheran forum. You can post fellowship postings if you like.

[Zacharias]

Aye :thumbsup:

[benedictine]

Well, for once I disagree with Colabomb. As an ELCA member, I would say that ELCA members are allowed becouse of CCM.

[Colabomb]

Well, for once I disagree with Colabomb. As an ELCA member, I would say that ELCA members are allowed becouse of CCM.
I thought you were Anglican Ben?

[benedictine]

I amI worded that wrong. It might have something to do with the fact that my brand new dental appliances are driving me crazy.

But, now that you mention it, Might members of the ECUSA be ELCA as well? and ELCA members be ECUSA?

[benedictine]

Yeah. I'm not thinking right, either.

[Wigglesworth]

Because of the agreement between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) in Called to Common Mission, . . . would members of the ELCA who are in agreement with and accept Called to Common Mission be considered full members of this forum (including debate)?

Well, the proposed rules do not include Lutherans for the reasons already stated above, but I don't suspect that there is anyone around here who is itching to boot anybody out of the forum unless somebody gets really nasty. I've even seen some nasty people get away with just a pleasant warning.

That's the tone of Anglicanism. ;)

[pmcleanj]

I don't suspect that there is anyone around here who is itching to boot anybody out of the forum unless somebody gets really nasty. I've even seen some nasty people get away with just a pleasant warning.
After all, we keep Wiggles around, and he's only a quasi-Anglican!

Uber, The no-debating rule for non-anglicans, is primarily to prevent those whose denomination has an inherently different understanding of something, from coming into our forum and dictating to us their view of correct doctrine or "the way things are". It's also to prevent those who have an axe to grind against Anglicans or some subset of Anglicanism (or Old Catholics) from grinding their axe here. And it stops those don't understand the whole breadth of diverse opinion present in Anglicanism, from coming in enthusiastically on one side or another of a sensitive internicene debate.

The fact is, that as long as you don't do any of those things, you won't be seen to be debating. Look at the enthusiasm with which Plan 9's return is being greeted, or the fond spot occupied by our Wigglesworth. Neither of them sports either the Celtic or the Conqueror's cross, but their gracious deportment has meant that, though nominally guests, they have seats reserved next to the fire in our alehouse, and it is to our delight that they treat our home as their own.

Incidentally, I worship regularly at the ELCIC church where my husband is in the worship band. For a little over a year that ELCIC church shared office space, nave, and worship services with the adjacent Anglican church while its own building was under construction. I know well the night-and-day difference between ELCIC and LCC (between ELCA and LCMS/WELS when translated into Americanese).

I owe the ELCIC a lot. The ELCIC has been more supportive of many of my gifts than my own church: I'm on the ELCIC synod's list of liturgical consultants in the area of fabric arts and liturgical dance. It's an ELCIC-sponsored church camp that invited my children to spend a week there every summer, and that supported my insistance that the children be allowed to attend worship and have Sunday School in a separate time-slot. I've been to as many Lutheran Women's Retreats as to Anglican Theology Alive and Images of Spirituality retreats. I recognize intimately how very close the ELCIC and the ACC are, especially as the ELCIC restores its historic episcopacy.

Yet we have had ELCA visitors come in to debate the very importance of the historic episcopacy from their own perspective of its unnecessity and their unwillingness to have it "thrust upon them". Historic episcopacy is one leg of the Lambeth Quadrilateral: something that very few Anglicans would consider negotiable. So you can see that there are ELCA visitors who would make rather uncomfortable members here, let alone being well-mannered guests. I don't think that you'll be among them, though. Can I buy you a Guinness in the Alehouse?

[benedictine]

Perhaps we could just let him be a VIG?


(Very Important Guest)

[PaladinValer]

Aye.

As from the time when I voted, 10 to 1. Looks like the ayes will win by a landside.

Good poll, Wiggles.

[Father Rick]

Wiggles...

Your numbering is off on the last couple of rules-- there are 2 number 6's.

[RobNJ]

Wiggles...

Your numbering is off on the last couple of rules-- there are 2 number 6's.

As long as it's doesn't have 3 of 'em!!!!!!:eek:

[seebs]

I like the proposed rule. I've been very frustrated when I've been curious about Anglican teachings, but all the Anglicans are too busy responding to endless arguments about homosexuality to talk about anything else. It seems like this issue is being pushed at people who would rather talk about, well, anything else; if we could get more clear recognition that this issue should stay in the forums allowed for it, I'd think the Anglicans could better discuss their beliefs on many other issues, which may be ultimately more important.

[UberLutheran]

...and this after I was chosen to be a delegate to our synod assembly this past year!

[reflecting] Ahhh, yes -- it got so contentious, and some of the proposed resolutions (a couple of them were against the Episcopalians) were so mean-spirited that I got up at 9:45 in the evening on the first day, brought up my Bible, and began reading 1 Chronicles.

And I kept reading. And reading. And reading...

About 10:30, someone asked how long I was going to keep reading, and I pointed out that the assembly re-started at 7 the next morning, which meant most of us had to be up by 5:30, and it was seven hours until 5:30 and there was plenty of First and Second Chronicles I could read for everyone's edification.

Second question: what would it take for me to stop reading so they could adjourn for the evening? (Answer: either pull the mean-spirited resolutions, or permanently table them.)

The vote took all of two minutes, the resolutions were pulled, and everybody went to their hotels.

Moral: Never underestimate the power of Scripture.

For me: I never saw why restoring the historic episcopacy was such a big deal. It is there, and there is a historical precedent; and if people want to get technical, it is Scriptural!

(I'm just a joy to have at congregational meetings, synod assemblies, etc. ;) )

OK. I will be an Anglican-lite. :wave:

About the beer: my tastes are rather strange. If we can make it a Celis Raspberry, I'll be right over.


After all, we keep Wiggles around, and he's only a quasi-Anglican!

Uber, The no-debating rule for non-anglicans, is primarily to prevent those whose denomination has an inherently different understanding of something, from coming into our forum and dictating to us their view of correct doctrine or "the way things are". It's also to prevent those who have an axe to grind against Anglicans or some subset of Anglicanism (or Old Catholics) from grinding their axe here. And it stops those don't understand the whole breadth of diverse opinion present in Anglicanism, from coming in enthusiastically on one side or another of a sensitive internicene debate.

The fact is, that as long as you don't do any of those things, you won't be seen to be debating. Look at the enthusiasm with which Plan 9's return is being greeted, or the fond spot occupied by our Wigglesworth. Neither of them sports either the Celtic or the Conqueror's cross, but their gracious deportment has meant that, though nominally guests, they have seats reserved next to the fire in our alehouse, and it is to our delight that they treat our home as their own.

Incidentally, I worship regularly at the ELCIC church where my husband is in the worship band. For a little over a year that ELCIC church shared office space, nave, and worship services with the adjacent Anglican church while its own building was under construction. I know well the night-and-day difference between ELCIC and LCC (between ELCA and LCMS/WELS when translated into Americanese).

I owe the ELCIC a lot. The ELCIC has been more supportive of many of my gifts than my own church: I'm on the ELCIC synod's list of liturgical consultants in the area of fabric arts and liturgical dance. It's an ELCIC-sponsored church camp that invited my children to spend a week there every summer, and that supported my insistance that the children be allowed to attend worship and have Sunday School in a separate time-slot. I've been to as many Lutheran Women's Retreats as to Anglican Theology Alive and Images of Spirituality retreats. I recognize intimately how very close the ELCIC and the ACC are, especially as the ELCIC restores its historic episcopacy.

Yet we have had ELCA visitors come in to debate the very importance of the historic episcopacy from their own perspective of its unnecessity and their unwillingness to have it "thrust upon them". Historic episcopacy is one leg of the Lambeth Quadrilateral: something that very few Anglicans would consider negotiable. So you can see that there are ELCA visitors who would make rather uncomfortable members here, let alone being well-mannered guests. I don't think that you'll be among them, though. Can I buy you a Guinness in the Alehouse?

[pmcleanj]

... it was seven hours until 5:30 and there was plenty of First and Second Chronicles I could read for everyone's edification ...
:D :clap:
Just what we need -- one more guy with a wickedly twisted sense of humour. :doh: You'll fit right in.
About the beer: my tastes are rather strange. If we can make it a Celis Raspberry, I'll be right over.
Well, then, come on over!

[SirTimothy]

LOL, UberLutheran!

(Answer: either pull the mean-spirited resolutions, or permanently table them.)


But as to this, I might note that in REAL English (that being British English, of course :-p ;)), Tabling a discussion means to start one, not to end one. This caused no end of difficulty between the Americans and the English after the second world war, when the Brits said they wanted to table a discussion on some rebuildling stuff, and the Americans said "No, we want to discuss it!" They both meant the same thing, it was just one of those little misunderstandings....

Timothy

[PaladinValer]

I think we could allow ECLAs (and similar) to be given "semi-official-status" :)

[Colabomb]

I think we could allow ECLAs (and similar) to be given "semi-official-status" :)
I believe it is fine to allow Lutherans to post like any other Non-Anglican. We are a bit lax on the debate rules,and I like that, but I think to open the Anglican forum too much will simply create another PRE.

[Wigglesworth]

Wiggles...

Your numbering is off on the last couple of rules-- there are 2 number 6's.

You're right. Thanks for catching that. I have no excuse for my outrageous behaviour. :crossrc:

The original post has been edited as to paragraph numbering.

Any claims that this has invalidated the votes already cast should be filed with the United States Supreme Court within thirty days of the date of the edit. Let me know how that goes.

[Iron Sun 254]

I voted affirmative.

I think anyone who can debate here is welcome so long as they are respectful of our beliefs and traditions.

[PaladinValer]

Colabomb, I agree. I think it would be wise then to have three levels of membership:

1. Full Membership to Anglicans and the Old Catholics
2. Semi-Membership to all others in Full Communion with the AC (Old Catholics being the exception as we already voted them to have Full Membership. Otherwise, this would include the ELCA and its Canadian/foreign equivalents)
3. Fellowship Membership to all others

Edit: I think it would also be beneficial to note that, to be considered "Anglican" or "Old Catholic" for this forum, one needs to have been either Confirmed into the Anglican/Old Catholic Churches or at least been Received in either as well. Simple "going to church" or "able to receive Holy Communion" isn't the same as actual membership. As such, those who do should be put in category 3.

Then again, those who are in the course of becoming members of either (such as Wiggles or so it seems) should be given a bit more flexibility.

[Zacharias]

I think we could allow ECLAs (and similar) to be given "semi-official-status" :)

What does "semi" mean? Does it mean that they can debate or can't debate?

[RobNJ]

What does "semi" mean? Does it mean that they can debate or can't debate?


The debate timer is set to 1minute, thirty seconds, instead of the full 3 minutes ;) ;)

[Zacharias]

The debate timer is set to 1minute, thirty seconds, instead of the full 3 minutes ;) ;)

I thought he might of meant that. ;)

[Iron Sun 254]

What does "semi" mean? Does it mean that they can debate or can't debate?

It means, perhaps, they are welcome to participate in a debate which has already begun but they cannot initiate a debate.

[Zacharias]

It means, perhaps, they are welcome to participate in a debate which has already begun but they cannot initiate a debate. Actually that's not a bad idea. :thumbsup:

[benedictine]

That IS a good idea.

[PaladinValer]

That was what I had in mind.

Plus I believe the yays have it.

[Wigglesworth]

Because of the agreement between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) and the Episcopal Church in the USA (ECUSA) in Called to Common Mission, where the two groups are now in full communion, share resources (including financial resources and clergy), and where the ELCA has agreed to follow the apostolic succession (including having an Episcopal bishop in attendance at the ordination of all Lutheran pastors and bishops, including the laying on of hands of said Lutheran pastors and bishops being ordained) -- would members of the ELCA who are in agreement with and accept Called to Common Mission be considered full members of this forum (including debate)?
After reading the above again, especially the bold italicized portion, it seems like these churches may fit into paragraph two of the proposed rules as sharing in the Anglican Tradition.

[julian the apostate]

full membership to any anglican community in communion with canterbury and any church in full communion w/ canterbury,, elca old catlicks and so on



(http://anglicansonline.org/communion/nic.html)

[AveMaria]

And while we're on the topic, pretty pretty please folks, use the appropriate denominational cross (or in some cases, piece of armor). Let's make life easier on our beloved mods.

[Father Rick]

Guys... this is why I was leery about starting to tinker with the rules...

[•Amadeus•]

Absolutely. We must remain in submission to legitimate digital authority. We are all guests here, after all.


digital authority??? :(

that's a new one... but true :sigh:

[•Amadeus•]

What was wrong with the way it was? How does this change anything? Hey, I'm new here. :confused:

[Father Rick]

What was wrong with the way it was? How does this change anything? Hey, I'm new here. :confused:Long story short...

Several months ago, it was decided by a general consensus that since there are only a handful of Old Catholics here on CF and Old Catholics and Anglicans are in full communion in real life... and are practically identical in theology and practix... that rather than create a separate OC forum, OC's should be allowed as official members of STR. ( A very nice guesture on the part of those here.) This decision involved the mods and even Erwin (the site owner).

Someone had the idea to now adjust the official forum rules to reflect what was already being practiced in this forum.