Our conservative/orthodox Anglican forum...

[Aymn27]

It seems to me that this may become a reality under this new vision....if so - we need to be ready for such action -- who among us still believes that such a forum would be beneficial to CF?

You can count me in...

[JasonV]

Does that mean there will be a liberal/hetrodox forum in STR?

[RadixLecti]

Does that mean there will be a liberal/hetrodox forum in STR?
I'd be in favor of it if members wanted it.

[Aymn27]

I'd be in favor of it if members wanted it.
me too...I've always thought a main forum with two suforums would be best....we could even have some that were high church/low church, etc...

[Iosias]

I support a conservative Anglican forum....:)

[Iosias]

Where is Redneckanglican?

[EvAng]

What would the basis of such a forum be? The 39 Articles?

[No Swansong]

Does that mean there will be a liberal/hetrodox forum in STR?
In case you haven't noticed Jason that is pretty much what the main STR board is.

[No Swansong]

I don't know I might create a sock and see how that works out.

[EvAng]

In case you haven't noticed Jason that is pretty much what the main STR board is.

Hence the repeated requests for the creation of a conservative Anglican subforum. Hopefully these new rules will enable us to create one here on CF. :prayer:

[No Swansong]

Hence the repeated requests for the creation of a conservative Anglican subforum. Hopefully these new rules will enable us to create one here on CF. :prayer:
Buddy I have fought that fight with reason, scripture, facts and respect. Unfortunately those who opposed fought it with emotionalism and cheap shots. Feel free to do your best but now that mob rules I'm not holding my breath.

[EvAng]

Buddy I have fought that fight with reason, scripture, facts and respect. Unfortunately those who opposed fought it with emotionalism and cheap shots. Feel free to do your best but now that mob rules I'm not holding my breath.

I understand but (1) please stay until the fight is over and (2) do not forget that you fought under the older rules now under the new ones there is more chance IMO that we could be successful.

Stay for now please mate. :hug:

[Naomi4Christ]

It seems to me that this may become a reality under this new vision....if so - we need to be ready for such action -- who among us still believes that such a forum would be beneficial to CF?

You can count me in...
Not me.

I like the diversity - as an evangelical, I am on the conservative side, but I appreciate learning from my liberal and catholic brothers and sisters.

[Naomi4Christ]

What would the basis of such a forum be? The 39 Articles?
That would be too easy. :)

[pmcleanj]

In case you haven't noticed Jason that is pretty much what the main STR board is.

No, it is not. And the assertion, my friend, is itself a cheap shot, and beneath you.

[pmcleanj]

Not me.

I like the diversity - as an evangelical, I am on the conservative side, but I appreciate learning from my liberal and catholic brothers and sisters.

Not to mention that, as Anglicans, diversity is intrinsic to our Tradition. Hence the repeated assertions that those who wish an explicitly conservative board, whether Anglican or otherwise, should feel free to go ahead and ask Erwin for one: but NOT as a subforum of STR.

[Naomi4Christ]

Not to mention that, as Anglicans, diversity is intrinsic to our Tradition. Hence the repeated assertions that those who wish an explicitly conservative board, whether Anglican or otherwise, should feel free to go ahead and ask Erwin for one: but NOT as a subforum of STR.
Exactly

[longhair75]

Good morning friends,

The specific nature of the changes have not been given out, but by reading friend Erwin's original statement, it would appear that we could, in fact, create a conservative forum. While I do not agree with my brother jtbdad that the current Anglican forum is Liberal/Heterodox I would be in support of our more conservative brothers and sisters in their creation of this forum.

[No Swansong]

No, it is not. And the assertion, my friend, is itself a cheap shot, and beneath you.
Obviously we have a difference of opinion on what is liberal/heterodox.

[karen freeinchristman]

In case you haven't noticed Jason that is pretty much what the main STR board is.
I honestly don't understand how you have come to this conclusion, John.

Anyway, I think that if conservative STR members want a subforum, they should be granted one; it cannot be denied that they have tried and fought long and hard for it.

[Naomi4Christ]

I actually see the forum as more catholic than anything. I wouldn't say that it is particularly liberal. The threads about Gene Robinson etc. that dominated the forum for a while were all started by conservatives and dominated by conservatives.

[EvAng]

I would suggest that any Conservative Anglican Forum have its rules based upon The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals:

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.

In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word "evangelical." In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional (http://www.bible-researcher.com/confessional.html). It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the "solas" of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word "evangelical" has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority
Scripture alone is the inerrant rule (http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html) of the church's life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies (http://www.bible-researcher.com/merchandise.html), and the beat of the entertainment (http://www.bible-researcher.com/amusinggoats.html) world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music (http://www.bible-researcher.com/links17.html). As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.


Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church's understanding, nurture and discipline.
Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God's truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God's provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher's opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God's grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

THESIS ONE: SOLA SCRIPTURA
We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian's conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion of Christ-Centered Faith
As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

THESIS TWO: SOLUS CHRISTUS
We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion of The Gospel
Unwarranted confidence in human ability (http://www.bible-researcher.com/sproul1.html) is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

THESIS THREE: SOLA GRATIA
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion of The Chief Article
Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ's imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ's cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ's substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God's children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ's saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.

THESIS FOUR: SOLA FIDE
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion of God-Centered Worship
Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God's and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God's centrality in the life of today's church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.

God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God's kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

THESIS FIVE: SOLI DEO GLORIA
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God's glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

For Christ's sake. Amen.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/cambridge1.html

[No Swansong]

I don't know I might create a sock and see how that works out.
Hey I might even create a few hundred socks just to make sure there are enough votes.

[karen freeinchristman]

Hey I might even create a few hundred socks just to make sure there are enough votes.
John, your attitude over the past 24 hours is disappointing and worrying. :(

[higgs2]

Buddy I have fought that fight with reason, scripture, facts and respect. Unfortunately those who opposed fought it with emotionalism and cheap shots. Feel free to do your best but now that mob rules I'm not holding my breath.

I am surprised that you would say that. :(

[No Swansong]

I should have used the qualifier "some" Higgs, I meant no offense to you and some of the others who opposed it. Please forgive my inability to communicate my thought accurately.

[No Swansong]

John, your attitude over the past 24 hours is disappointing and worrying. :(


Why?

[Secundulus]

I appears to me, from the "sola" post above, that what you really want is a Calvinist/Anglican subform, not a conservative subforum. Sola scriptura is contrary to the Catholic faith, and as a Catholic I cannot support it.

[RadixLecti]

I appears to me, from the "sola" post above, that what you really want is a Calvinist/Anglican subform, not a conservative subforum. Sola scriptura is contrary to the Catholic faith, and as a Catholic I cannot support it.
I agree, I think we should leave room for traditional Anglo-Catholics

[Colabomb]

I've never been really super keen on the idea of the subforums, although I did flirt with the idea for a while.

Right now I'd be happy to see the Anglican board, and the Christian boards, Remain Anglican and Christian.

Be prepared to answer constant criticisms of our faith posed as questions, while the mods are unable to do a thing.

[No Swansong]

I guess this is my last post. I was hoping that Karen would have time to respond to my why, but I know that it is a busy day for her. I am sorry that I will not be able to read her thoughts on how my behavior is disappointing and worrying. I have long appreciated both her and Higgs opinions.

I will be on Conservative Anglican as an Admin and on CCF as a moderator.

I never thought I would be leaving CF with bitterness and anger towards my brothers and sisters here.

Oh well.

John

[Secundulus]

I've never been really super keen on the idea of the subforums, although I did flirt with the idea for a while.

Right now I'd be happy to see the Anglican board, and the Christian boards, Remain Anglican and Christian.

Be prepared to answer constant criticisms of our faith posed as questions, while the mods are unable to do a thing.

After having read some of the athiests comments on their forum I'm not sure thats going to happen to any great extent. They have plenty of Christians, including myself, to argue with there already.

[Aymn27]

Hey I might even create a few hundred socks just to make sure there are enough votes.
lol..I think it's funny!

[Aymn27]

I agree, I think we should leave room for traditional Anglo-Catholics
me too..hey AV..er EvAng..how about allowing conservative statements from both..for instance..I have no problem with your qualifiers (albeit I'm Armenian, not Calvinist) - how about a traditional/orthodox/conservative Anglo-Catholic come up with what makes them "conservative"....

[karen freeinchristman]

I guess this is my last post. I was hoping that Karen would have time to respond to my why
Oh, John, it doesn't really matter any longer. I just thought your posts (in the announcements thread) sounded highly reactionary and I was disappointed that you have responded in such a way so quickly without waiting a bit, all presumably based on assumptions of how things might turn out. You could be right in your assumptions, I'll grant you that. I guess I'm just one who likes to sit back and wait a bit first, but we're all different.

I'll miss you, John. But I will stop in at the CA forum, and the CCF one, too, to keep up with friends like you. May the Peace of the Lord be always with you.

[ProdigalSeeker]

I support a separate conservative forum. The key is unity. Equal but different.

[higgs2]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5521488-a-conservative-forum.html

[Albion]

I agree, I think we should leave room for traditional Anglo-Catholics

Let's face it, in the end, almost everyone will resent not being able to call himself "conservative," just as almost every candidate for public office wants to say that he's "conservative" in some way or other. Virtually none take on the liberal designation willingly, not even those who are liberal in almost every way. If they are flaming socialists but say they want to be prudent with the tax monies or keep good records, they insist that they are "fiscal conservatives," etc. So also with religion. Everyone from Anglo-Romanists to Calvinists to Charismatics to Protestant Evangelical, Low Churchmen to that strange group that thinks TEC defying the Anglican Communion (and therefore standing up for its autonomy) is heroic, will say they're "conservative."

Look, for example, at all the high-fiving that occured around here when a bishop decided that a woman priest who is also a Muslim should think it over for a year. "Wonderful!" "The Church really stood up for traditional values!" they said. No matter that almost every heresy and immorality has has free reign in that particular body for a quarter century; a tiny slap on the wrist over something as obviously unacceptable as a minister belonging to a non-Christian faith is heralded as really rock-ribbed. Still conservative? Yeah, right. Compared to what?

If that makes me pessimistic in this instance, OK. I'd love to be proven wrong when the designers of a new forum set out to do their work, but I can see all this happening because its already here for anyone who's read all the posts in this thread.

[EvAng]

me too..hey AV..er EvAng..how about allowing conservative statements from both..for instance..I have no problem with your qualifiers (albeit I'm Armenian, not Calvinist) - how about a traditional/orthodox/conservative Anglo-Catholic come up with what makes them "conservative"....

All I am advocating is an evangelical Anglican subforum :)

[EvAng]

http://www.christianforums.com/t5521488-a-conservative-forum.html

Thanks for the link but that is not what I had in mind.

[AngCath]

I vote against the hypothetical creation of subforums. If you're an Anglican, dealing with those with whom you disagree is part of the gig.

[Colabomb]

I vote against the hypothetical creation of subforums. If you're an Anglican, dealing with those with whom you disagree is part of the gig.


AngCath, there are a few posters now arguing that Nicea should not be a standard. That is deeper than Evangelical/Catholic Lib/Con.

[Albion]

I vote against the hypothetical creation of subforums. If you're an Anglican, dealing with those with whom you disagree is part of the gig.

I think you're on to something important there. If we were all segregated in the way that has been suggested, we'd very soon find it boring merely to be saying "Right on. That's right" to everything posted. If not that, we'd soon be reduced to such "hot" topics as the best scent for your incense or whether hosts should have an IHS stamped on them or just be plain.
:yawn:

[Colabomb]

Look, I don't want subforums... REALLY I don't, but if we are going to do away with the Nicene Creed, we don't have much of an option.

[longhair75]

I would vote against any attempt to do away with the Nicene creed

[Wigglesworth]

I guess this is my last post. I was hoping that Karen would have time to respond to my why, but I know that it is a busy day for her. I am sorry that I will not be able to read her thoughts on how my behavior is disappointing and worrying. I have long appreciated both her and Higgs opinions.

I will be on Conservative Anglican as an Admin and on CCF as a moderator.

I never thought I would be leaving CF with bitterness and anger towards my brothers and sisters here.

Oh well.

John

If it's not your last post, at least put some clothes on. You do realize that you've been standing around in your underwear, don't you?

[RadixLecti]

If it's not your last post, at least put some clothes on. You do realize that you've been standing around in your underwear, don't you?
My CF character refuses to wear pants until Jtbdad returns.

[Wigglesworth]

I had no intention of provoking a partial-nudity strike.

[PaladinValer]

Wait...some of you can see CF characters, icons, and such?

I'm completely unable to. A bug?

[Colabomb]

I'm looking at yours right now PV

[PaladinValer]

Thanks, Cola.

All I get is an extremely slow logon and I get a bunch of Xs.

No CF characters, no avatars, no smilies, no links, no icons, no edit/report/reply/post multireply/etc buttons, no pets, no post count/rep count/rep bar/health bar, just nothing!

Kinda nekked really **raspberry**

[PaladinValer]

Whatever you may have done Colabomb, it worked!

TYVM :bow:

[EvAng]

In STR I believe that the main forum should allow fellowship between Anglicans (this term needs defining) of various traditions. I then see a number of subforums created for a number of reasons:
1. Ask an Anglican - The forum to ask Anglicans questions about their beliefs
2. Debate with an Anglican - The forum to debate with Anglicans about their beliefs
3. Anglican Library - A forum to discuss and recommend books and resources
4. Conservative Anglicans - The forum for conservative Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord
5. Evangelical Anglicans - The forum for evangelical Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord
6. Liberal Anglicans - The forum for liberal Anglicans to fellowship and grow together in the Lord
7. Anglo-Catholics Together - The forum for Anglo-Catholics to fellowship and grow together in the Lord

So my vision is:

STR is a forum which champions unity whilst recognising diversity.

[Polycarp1]

Well, as John leaves in one direction, consider I have left in the other. And when you have your happy little gathering of ultraconservative pseudo-Anglicans nicely structured with enough barrier rules to keep out the unwashed and undeserving, do not forget to thank God for your purity, that you are not unclean and unworthy in his sight like those liberals you despise.

Goodbye, STR.

[ContraMundum]

It seems to me that this may become a reality under this new vision....if so - we need to be ready for such action -- who among us still believes that such a forum would be beneficial to CF?

You can count me in...

Me too.....

[higgs2]

Well, as John leaves in one direction, consider I have left in the other. And when you have your happy little gathering of ultraconservative pseudo-Anglicans nicely structured with enough barrier rules to keep out the unwashed and undeserving, do not forget to thank God for your purity, that you are not unclean and unworthy in his sight like those liberals you despise.

Goodbye, STR.

Polycarp, please stay and help form some sort of a vision. Right now we are hearing from a couple of people who have a very strong idea of what they want to see. THat does not mean that this is how STR will be. Please stay, you are a uniter, we need your abilities and experience in this area. We need you to help us stay on track and avoid following our our own private agendas without consideration of the big Picture. We need your discernment. Forgive us for our frailties in succumbing to our own biases.

[Naomi4Christ]

Polycarp, please stay and help form some sort of a vision. Right now we are hearing from a couple of people who have a very strong idea of what they want to see. THat does not mean that this is how STR will be. Please stay, you are a uniter, we need your abilities and experience in this area. We need you to help us stay on track and avoid following our our own private agendas without consideration of the big Picture. We need your discernment. Forgive us for our frailties in succumbing to our own biases.
seconded

[Naomi4Christ]

Wait...some of you can see CF characters, icons, and such?

I'm completely unable to. A bug?
It seems to be a staff problem. I've alerted Ron.

[Colabomb]

Whatever you may have done Colabomb, it worked!

TYVM :bow:


Yeah... *takes credit for other's work*

Its all me ;)

I pushed the Big Red Button.

[higgs2]

Yeah... *takes credit for other's work*

Its all me ;)

I pushed the Big Red Button.

Cool.

Now would you help me find the Easy Button? :cool:

[Colabomb]

Cool.

Now would you help me find the Easy Button? :cool:

Its over there

*points to the fire alarm, trying to suppress a giggle*

[PaladinValer]

I third Higgs2 and Naomi4Christ, and that means we have three people who disagree with each other all in agreement on this very important issue.

Av's suggestion is not shared universally. The fact that we three have chosen, despite our differences, not to separate should speak volumns.

Please reconsider the PM I gave you a few days ago, Polycarp1. We want you to be a visible presence. Nothing yet is set in stone here, and I for one want to hear what your visions are, what your proposals would be, and would love to see you vote with the rest of us.

[PaladinValer]

Big Red Button?

"That was easy!"

:D

[higgs2]

I third Higgs2 and Naomi4Christ, and that means we have an liberal, and Evangelical, and an Anglo-Catholic in agreement.

Av's suggestion is not shared universally. The fact that we three have chosen, despite our differences, not to separate should speak volumns.

Please reconsider the PM I gave you a few days ago, Polycarp1. We want you to be a visible presence. Nothing yet is set in stone here, and I for one want to hear what your visions are, what your proposals would be, and would love to see you vote with the rest of us.


Which one am I? :confused:

[PaladinValer]

My apologies; I already thought you were liberal...I recant and retract.

Mea culpa **beat**
Mea culpa **beat**
Mea culpa **beat**

Please forgive.

[Inside Edge]

Despite 6 pages of discussion, I still have very little idea why people have such a problem with separate forums, when a "main" forum similar to what we already have will still exist.

In Av's outline, there's a few forums which will contain everything we already do: we can enter those forums for free-for-all discussion, Q/A, and debate, regardless of our position on the meter. My guess is, those will continue to be the most frequented and widely used forums.

Then there's the other forums for people to gather with like-minds on a subject or discusson or ego-stroking or whatever. I can only imagine 3 scenarios regarding the subforums:

1. A certain group (or all of us) retreat into our sub-forum so we never have to deal with "the others" and be removed from our comfort zones. I doubt this would happen since we wouldn't bother with these boards in the first place if that's really what most of us wanted. And for anyone who does retreat completely (or almost completely) into their like-minded sub-forum, well, so what? Chances are they would end up bailing on the forum anyway.

2. The sub-forums get used moderately, so certain subjects can be hashed out amongst like-minded people without being bothered or infuriated by "the others" who may or may not be trying to needle or provoke. They function as an occasional ego-fest, an occasional cooling-off area, and an occasional deepen-you-faith-without-being-challenged area. But by and large, most people still end up using the main area because at the end of the day, we're all here for the good arguments anyway.

3. The sub-forums are rarely ever touched. Other than the odd venting/ego-stroking thread, people realize it's pretty boring in there without "the others." So we all end up in the main area anyway.

So what was the problem or threat of forums again?

I would only be concerned about one danger, which I think can be moderated: that we don't forget the "sub" prefix. They are all still Anglican and we all have to accept all of them as such. In this spirit, I would hope that each sub-forum is moderated such that the people in them do not go down the road of labelling "the others" as "not actually Anglican," etc. They can talk and wish that there is a split or that something is banned or reiontroduced or opened up or accepted -whatever. But a watch should be kept that what goes on in a sub-forum is respectful (or at least reminded) that it is just a "sub" of Anglican, not Anglican completely in and of itself.

[EvAng]

Despite 6 pages of discussion, I still have very little idea why people have such a problem with separate forums, when a "main" forum similar to what we already have will still exist.

In Av's outline, there's a few forums which will contain everything we already do: we can enter those forums for free-for-all discussion, Q/A, and debate, regardless of our position on the meter. My guess is, those will continue to be the most frequented and widely used forums.

Then there's the other forums for people to gather with like-minds on a subject or discusson or ego-stroking or whatever. I can only imagine 3 scenarios regarding the subforums:

1. A certain group (or all of us) retreat into our sub-forum so we never have to deal with "the others" and be removed from our comfort zones. I doubt this would happen since we wouldn't bother with these boards in the first place if that's really what most of us wanted. And for anyone who does retreat completely (or almost completely) into their like-minded sub-forum, well, so what? Chances are they would end up bailing on the forum anyway.

2. The sub-forums get used moderately, so certain subjects can be hashed out amongst like-minded people without being bothered or infuriated by "the others" who may or may not be trying to needle or provoke. They function as an occasional ego-fest, an occasional cooling-off area, and an occasional deepen-you-faith-without-being-challenged area. But by and large, most people still end up using the main area because at the end of the day, we're all here for the good arguments anyway.

3. The sub-forums are rarely ever touched. Other than the odd venting/ego-stroking thread, people realize it's pretty boring in there without "the others." So we all end up in the main area anyway.

So what was the problem or threat of forums again?

I would only be concerned about one danger, which I think can be moderated: that we don't forget the "sub" prefix. They are all still Anglican and we all have to accept all of them as such. In this spirit, I would hope that each sub-forum is moderated such that the people in them do not go down the road of labelling "the others" as "not actually Anglican," etc. They can talk and wish that there is a split or that something is banned or reiontroduced or opened up or accepted -whatever. But a watch should be kept that what goes on in a sub-forum is respectful (or at least reminded) that it is just a "sub" of Anglican, not Anglican completely in and of itself.

:amen: :thumbsup:

[EvAng]

I have set up a poll to guage STR opinion here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5678106-an-str-evangelical-anglican-subforum.html).

[Albion]

I have set up a poll to guage STR opinion here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5678106-an-str-evangelical-anglican-subforum.html).

Frankly, I don't know how to vote because I have no idea how the rest of the new world of CF will look. If there were to be an Anglo-Papalist sub forum, then yes, I suppose so. If there are no other Anglican subs, then no.

[Wigglesworth]

Well, as John leaves in one direction, consider I have left in the other. And when you have your happy little gathering of ultraconservative pseudo-Anglicans nicely structured with enough barrier rules to keep out the unwashed and undeserving, do not forget to thank God for your purity, that you are not unclean and unworthy in his sight like those liberals you despise.

Goodbye, STR.

I've been here long enough to remember when you did this before. You are a sensitive man, and everyone will welcome you back when you change your mind again.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Simon_Templar]

Does that mean there will be a liberal/hetrodox forum in STR?
If you want to start one you have my full support, go for it!

[Simon_Templar]

Not to mention that, as Anglicans, diversity is intrinsic to our Tradition. Hence the repeated assertions that those who wish an explicitly conservative board, whether Anglican or otherwise, should feel free to go ahead and ask Erwin for one: but NOT as a subforum of STR.
Diversity has become a cloak for evil.

[Simon_Templar]

Good morning friends,

The specific nature of the changes have not been given out, but by reading friend Erwin's original statement, it would appear that we could, in fact, create a conservative forum. While I do not agree with my brother jtbdad that the current Anglican forum is Liberal/Heterodox I would be in support of our more conservative brothers and sisters in their creation of this forum.
I wanted to note that I appreciate your courteous and amicable attitude. It always stands out.

[PaladinValer]

Diversity has become a cloak for evil.

Why is it that those who want subforums speak like this?

Those who want them already have an entire conservative Anglican forum elsewhere, complete with subforums. Its there; have fun.

[Simon_Templar]

I would propose that we form an orthodox Anglican subforum.

Whether you like, or dislike the term conservative, evangelical, or catholic or whatever. The point we all agree on (even between the calvinist and the non calvinist) is that we want a forum where the basic creeds and tenets of the faith are upheld. I would call that "orthodox" as opposed to conservative or what have you.

As such I would propose that the general guidlines be

#1 the Nicene and Apostles Creeds must be adhered to.

This does not mean that those who do not adhere to the creeds could not post, BUT that posts/threads which openly deny or question the creeds would not be allowed. In otherwords, if people who don't adhere to the creeds wanted to post on other topics, they'd be able to, but they would not be able to voice their 'unorthodox' views.

#2 The reliablity and authority of scripture must be adhered to.

As in the case of the creeds those who do not hold this view would be allowed to post, but would be restricted from airing views that openly deny or reject the authority or reliability of the scriptures.

#3 The Anglican tradition of faith and practice may not be attacked or maligned.

Non-anglicans would be allowed to post and even to participate in discussion on doctrinal issues, however the Anglican tradition/church would not be open to attack or condemnation. For example, a Roman Catholic could discuss doctrine with us, but not accuse us of having invalid orders and sacraments.

#4 - Established traditional doctrines of the church universal must be adhered to.

If the church has held a given doctrinal position regarding morality or practice, universally (in all its parts and through out its entire history) posts which deny that doctrine would not be allowed. (examples of such issues would include, sexual immorality, abortion, euthenasia)

I'm not entirely opposed to using the 39 articles, provided it is acknowledged as acceptable that the articles may be interpeted in a non-calvinist manner. Much like the CF site did with the Nicene Creed. They required adherence but allowed non-catholic interpetations of baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

[PaladinValer]

No.

Now you are suggesting who is orthodox and who is not. Another wonderfully divisive way to splinter STR.

No subforums.

[Simon_Templar]

Why is it that those who want subforums speak like this?

Those who want them already have an entire conservative Anglican forum elsewhere, complete with subforums. Its there; have fun.
Maybe those who want a sub-forum speak like this, because those who recognize the evils are sick of being inundated by them and sick of hearing them defended, and sick of having it demanded that they tolerate them, thus they want a place where they would be free to not be confronted with the decay of western civilization infecting the church.

.... thats just a guess tho ;)

[Simon_Templar]

No.

Now you are suggesting who is orthodox and who is not. Another wonderfully divisive way to splinter STR.

No subforums.

oh.. well I'm sorry... Lord PV has spoken, I guess we should all be good children and do as we're told

and for the record, I"M not saying who's orthodox. The Church has already done that, I'm just suggesting that we adhere to it.

[PaladinValer]

Here's a novel idea that'll make everyone happy:

STR has no subforums
A new congregational forum strictly for Continuing Anglicans, who can make of it whatever they want.

I notice that those who want subforums are either Continuing Anglicans or who would fit better in their churches. So, they get what they want and those who are In Communion with Canterbury get what they want.

[Simon_Templar]

No.

Now you are suggesting who is orthodox and who is not. Another wonderfully divisive way to splinter STR.

No subforums.
And another thing.

I'm done being held hostage by this kind of attitude. Its like a child who demands that you play with them and throws a fit when you'd rather be doing something else.

Well, I've had enough of it. If there is a sub-forum I'll be part of it, otherwise I'm done.

I'll stick around to see how things hash out here and participate in discussions regarding the sub-forum.

[RadixLecti]

Paladin, it looks like Simon is trying to solve the problem you mentioned here:

To allow non-Nicenes full rights is to suggest STR is no longer Catholic.

That is simply not acceptable. It says that we are no longer a Christian forum.

[Albion]

I would propose that we form an orthodox Anglican subforum.

Whether you like, or dislike the term conservative, evangelical, or catholic or whatever. The point we all agree on (even between the calvinist and the non calvinist) is that we want a forum where the basic creeds and tenets of the faith are upheld. I would call that "orthodox" as opposed to conservative or what have you.

As such I would propose that the general guidlines be

#1 the Nicene and Apostles Creeds must be adhered to.

This does not mean that those who do not adhere to the creeds could not post, BUT that posts/threads which openly deny or question the creeds would not be allowed. In otherwords, if people who don't adhere to the creeds wanted to post on other topics, they'd be able to, but they would not be able to voice their 'unorthodox' views.

#2 The reliablity and authority of scripture must be adhered to.

As in the case of the creeds those who do not hold this view would be allowed to post, but would be restricted from airing views that openly deny or reject the authority or reliability of the scriptures.

#3 The Anglican tradition of faith and practice may not be attacked or maligned.

Non-anglicans would be allowed to post and even to participate in discussion on doctrinal issues, however the Anglican tradition/church would not be open to attack or condemnation. For example, a Roman Catholic could discuss doctrine with us, but not accuse us of having invalid orders and sacraments.

#4 - Established traditional doctrines of the church universal must be adhered to.

If the church has held a given doctrinal position regarding morality or practice, universally (in all its parts and through out its entire history) posts which deny that doctrine would not be allowed. (examples of such issues would include, sexual immorality, abortion, euthenasia)

I'm not entirely opposed to using the 39 articles, provided it is acknowledged as acceptable that the articles may be interpeted in a non-calvinist manner. Much like the CF site did with the Nicene Creed. They required adherence but allowed non-catholic interpetations of baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Although I might have changed a word or two here or there from what you wrote, my two cents' worth say that you did a very thoughtful and fairminded job there. Good work, Simon. Don't know whether it has a chance since it looks like there is no proposal that's going to get much support, but applause to you for what you've put together here (above).

[Inside Edge]

There's two threads (at least) discussing/debating this subject. Any chance it could get merged, or an "official" one created?

And what about putting a time limit on it? We can dance around this all day until one side becomes exhausted and just gives up(which will be the conservative/orthodox) and this issue is iced for a few months, and then we start the song and dance again.

I'm just concerned this discussion will rage on for a bit and never be truly dealt with. The decision on something like this lies with us as a community now, and it appears we have a focused issue, so we should try and deal with it in a reasonable and timely manner.

If the discussion becomes closed and goes to a vote at some defined point in time, it might help things. And I understand it's hard to just make a sub-forum when the t general-forum rules are still up in the air; however, it's not hard to approve or reject the concept. The vote could merely decide whether a sub-forum will be created, pending and subject to whatever becomes of the new general forum rules

[AveMaria]

Using the word "orthodox" to describe the proposed evangelical and/or conservative subforum seems really loaded, IMO.

Particularly since the Anglican Communion is made up of auto-cephalous churches that are not always 100% in agreement with each other.

[Wigglesworth]

After everyone interested has the opportunity to vote in a poll about the topic, maybe a week or two, someone could add the appropriate text to the wiki or ask a mod to sticky it in a locked thread.

[Albion]

Using the word "orthodox" to describe the proposed evangelical and/or conservative subforum seems really loaded, IMO.

Particularly since the Anglican Communion is made up of auto-cephalous churches that are not always 100% in agreement with each other.

Some of them aren't orthodox, natch.

But sure, that's a word that is bound to cause problems.

[Colabomb]

Fine how about the terms

Traditional and..... progressive.

Neutral enough?

[Albion]

Fine how about the terms

Traditional and..... progressive.

Neutral enough?

I'm sure that the Anglo-Romanists will contend that because they wear birettas and use the same number of candles behind the altar as in the Vatican useage, that they're the real traditionalists. IMO, Evangelical and Anglo-Catholic are established terms and might as well be used if this is the direction we're headed in with subs. As for the modern day liberals, they can go with the other liberals, the Anglo-Catholics because of the obvious similarities. If that sounds flippant, it's not. There are divisions among Evangelicals, too, so if there are divisions on some matters between old style liberals and new style liberals, there's not much advantage to either side (Evangelical vs. Anglo-Catholic). Additionally, each side seems to be comfortable with these terms.

[EvAng]

I would propose that we form an orthodox Anglican subforum.

Whether you like, or dislike the term conservative, evangelical, or catholic or whatever. The point we all agree on (even between the calvinist and the non calvinist) is that we want a forum where the basic creeds and tenets of the faith are upheld. I would call that "orthodox" as opposed to conservative or what have you.

As such I would propose that the general guidlines be

#1 the Nicene and Apostles Creeds must be adhered to.

This does not mean that those who do not adhere to the creeds could not post, BUT that posts/threads which openly deny or question the creeds would not be allowed. In otherwords, if people who don't adhere to the creeds wanted to post on other topics, they'd be able to, but they would not be able to voice their 'unorthodox' views.

#2 The reliablity and authority of scripture must be adhered to.

As in the case of the creeds those who do not hold this view would be allowed to post, but would be restricted from airing views that openly deny or reject the authority or reliability of the scriptures.

#3 The Anglican tradition of faith and practice may not be attacked or maligned.

Non-anglicans would be allowed to post and even to participate in discussion on doctrinal issues, however the Anglican tradition/church would not be open to attack or condemnation. For example, a Roman Catholic could discuss doctrine with us, but not accuse us of having invalid orders and sacraments.

#4 - Established traditional doctrines of the church universal must be adhered to.

If the church has held a given doctrinal position regarding morality or practice, universally (in all its parts and through out its entire history) posts which deny that doctrine would not be allowed. (examples of such issues would include, sexual immorality, abortion, euthenasia)

I'm not entirely opposed to using the 39 articles, provided it is acknowledged as acceptable that the articles may be interpeted in a non-calvinist manner. Much like the CF site did with the Nicene Creed. They required adherence but allowed non-catholic interpetations of baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

:amen: :thumbsup:

[EvAng]

Using the word "orthodox" to describe the proposed evangelical and/or conservative subforum seems really loaded, IMO.

Not IMO though. The Church has defined what is orthodox and all we wish is for this to be upheld.

[PaladinValer]

Once again, EvAng, you have said, which made Polycarp1 leave, "we're better than you and we don't want you."

The labels are inappropriate. Any use of the words "orthodox" and "tradition" and even "progressive" are rediculous.

[EvAng]

Once again, EvAng, you have said, which made Polycarp1 leave, "we're better than you and we don't want you."

Who posted the thread A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please?

The labels are inappropriate. Any use of the words "orthodox" and "tradition" and even "progressive" are rediculous.

Whose custom title reads "Orthodox Catholic..."?

[Albion]

Who posted the thread A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please?



Whose custom title reads "Orthodox Catholic..."?


Do we all get to guess?

[PaladinValer]

Who posted the thread A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please?

Oh please...

If you are Anglican, then you are Christian
If you are Christian, then you are Nicene
Therefore, if you are Anglican, then you are Nicene

All I used was a tautology.



Whose custom title reads "Orthodox Catholic..."?

But for what reason? To proclaim that, even though I'm not as "conservative" as others, I'm still orthodox. Conservative=orthodox or even Conservative=traditional is declared to be incorrect based on the title.

[Simon_Templar]

Oh please...

If you are Anglican, then you are Christian
If you are Christian, then you are Nicene
Therefore, if you are Anglican, then you are Nicene

All I used was a tautology.





But for what reason? To proclaim that, even though I'm not as "conservative" as others, I'm still orthodox. Conservative=orthodox or even Conservative=traditional is declared to be incorrect based on the title.
The problem here is that your tautology is no longer true in practice. Not all those who claim the title anglican are either nicene or christian.

and for the record, conservative and traditional are virtual synonyms. Conservative by definition means preserving the traditions of a given society.

[Camden202]

The problem here is that your tautology is no longer true in practice. Not all those who claim the title anglican are either nicene or christian.
how can this be Simon???

The very foundation of Anglicanism is contained in the 39 Articles.

Article 8 confirms the Nicean Creed.

I find this concept of non-nicean to be confusing. Could you please explain how one can be Anglican and not have a base in the Articles?

[Albion]

how can this be Simon???

The very foundation of Anglicanism is contained in the 39 Articles.

Article 8 confirms the Nicean Creed.

I find this concept of non-nicean to be confusing. Could you please explain how one can be Anglican and not have a base in the Articles?

In a time when Bishop Spong is the best known Anglican in the world with the possible exception of Bishop Tutu who thinks that Communism is the essence of Christianity, who can deny that the observation that Anglicanism--at least in some quarters--has become Unitarianism with vestments has some truth to it? IOW, maybe he was just noting the obvious and preparing for it. His earlier proposal for the groundrules vis a vis STR certainly didn't indicate a preference for that kind of open endedness.

[Simon_Templar]

how can this be Simon???

The very foundation of Anglicanism is contained in the 39 Articles.

Article 8 confirms the Nicean Creed.

I find this concept of non-nicean to be confusing. Could you please explain how one can be Anglican and not have a base in the Articles?
I'm not saying that this is how it should be. I'm saying that this is the fact of how it is.

If you would care to investigate for yourself, ask the Anglicans here what they think of the 39 articles. The most common response will be that they don't particularly pay attention to the articles and feel no obligation to uphold them, or really care much about what they say.

[PaladinValer]

The problem here is that your tautology is no longer true in practice. Not all those who claim the title anglican are either nicene or christian.

Claim being the correct term to use.

And de jure and de facto, the Nicene Creed is still official.

and for the record, conservative and traditional are virtual synonyms. Conservative by definition means preserving the traditions of a given society.

Virtually doesn't mean exactly however.

[ebia]

I would propose that we form an orthodox Anglican subforum.

Whether you like, or dislike the term conservative, evangelical, or catholic or whatever. The point we all agree on (even between the calvinist and the non calvinist) is that we want a forum where the basic creeds and tenets of the faith are upheld. I would call that "orthodox" as opposed to conservative or what have you.

As such I would propose that the general guidlines be

#1 the Nicene and Apostles Creeds must be adhered to.

This does not mean that those who do not adhere to the creeds could not post, BUT that posts/threads which openly deny or question the creeds would not be allowed. In otherwords, if people who don't adhere to the creeds wanted to post on other topics, they'd be able to, but they would not be able to voice their 'unorthodox' views.

#2 The reliablity and authority of scripture must be adhered to.

As in the case of the creeds those who do not hold this view would be allowed to post, but would be restricted from airing views that openly deny or reject the authority or reliability of the scriptures.

#3 The Anglican tradition of faith and practice may not be attacked or maligned.

Non-anglicans would be allowed to post and even to participate in discussion on doctrinal issues, however the Anglican tradition/church would not be open to attack or condemnation. For example, a Roman Catholic could discuss doctrine with us, but not accuse us of having invalid orders and sacraments.

#4 - Established traditional doctrines of the church universal must be adhered to.

If the church has held a given doctrinal position regarding morality or practice, universally (in all its parts and through out its entire history) posts which deny that doctrine would not be allowed. (examples of such issues would include, sexual immorality, abortion, euthenasia)

I'm not entirely opposed to using the 39 articles, provided it is acknowledged as acceptable that the articles may be interpeted in a non-calvinist manner. Much like the CF site did with the Nicene Creed. They required adherence but allowed non-catholic interpetations of baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Points 1-3 seem pretty clear cut. Point 4 seems rather open to discussion and hard to enforce - there is considerable scope for disagreement about what the church has taught "always and everywhere".

[Colabomb]

I agree with 1-3. While I agree that the things in 4 are sinful, i believe those conversations should be had.

[Simon_Templar]

I agree with 1-3. While I agree that the things in 4 are sinful, i believe those conversations should be had.
If you admit those as valid conversations, you've already removed points 2 and 3.

[ebia]

If you admit those as valid conversations, you've already removed points 2 and 3.
??? How?

[norbie]

My 2 cents worth is we should not have to many sub forums. My reason is 1. a better, broad understanding if others can contribute, and second we conservative Anglicans would miss out on mission to others.
I always think if we have a honest discussion of Anglicanism and the Bible itself - we can have a great outreach, especialy that all members can look at our post.
Just a thought,
Norbie

[Colabomb]

If you admit those as valid conversations, you've already removed points 2 and 3.

So instead of engaging the problem and showing the Word of God on the subject, we should just blow off anyone who disagrees with us....

[Simon_Templar]

So instead of engaging the problem and showing the Word of God on the subject, we should just blow off anyone who disagrees with us....
well first, I'd hardly count 2 years of sitting in here having the same discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... blowing off anyone who disagrees with me.

secondly, and in answer to Ebia as well, I was mixing up two different conversations so I had something else in mind than #3 (I was thinking it was adherence to the Holy Tradition which was from a different discussion).

However, with #2. The scriptures speak decisively and unambiguously on the issues in #4. You can not logically admit that the issues in #4 are open to debate without either allowing that the scripture is not reliable, or that it is not authoritative.
The entire point of the conservative forum idea was to have a place where we did not have to constantly be defending the basic doctrines of our faith such as the inspiration, reliablity, and authority of scripture. If issues that are clearly dealt with in scripture are open to question, then the whole issue is pointless and useless.

[ContraMundum]

Why do we *need* a subforum, anyway? Can't we speak freely here?

[Inside Edge]

Why do we *need* a subforum, anyway? Can't we speak freely here?
Aparently not. For example, several members have complained that if they want a discussion on, say, female clergy which operated from the position that it is not acceptable, it is near impossible to have such a discussion. Inevitably, the basic priciples come under question in the thread and that's all that ever gets discussed.

In a sub-forum that had some extra stipulations about the context in which topics are discussed would, in theory, allow certain issues to be discussed without having to hash out (or be derailed by questioning) the base principles.

[Simon_Templar]

Why do we *need* a subforum, anyway? Can't we speak freely here?
There is a basic problem here that alot of people don't seem to recognize. You CAN'T have productive reasonable conversation on issues of doctrine, theology etc, unless you share at least some common ground or some common starting point.

Its not a matter of don't want to, its a matter of can't. You can't have a reasonable discussion of physics with someone if you believe that the laws of physics and they believe magic, or what have you.

The point is that ALL you will ever end up discussing is wether or not there are laws of physics, or if its just magic, because it will be impossible to make sense of any other related topic until that basic foundation is established. We have a situation here were it will never be established.

[ebia]

well first, I'd hardly count 2 years of sitting in here having the same discussion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over... blowing off anyone who disagrees with me.

secondly, and in answer to Ebia as well, I was mixing up two different conversations so I had something else in mind than #3 (I was thinking it was adherence to the Holy Tradition which was from a different discussion).
Fair enough.


However, with #2. The scriptures speak decisively and unambiguously on the issues in #4. You can not logically admit that the issues in #4 are open to debate without either allowing that the scripture is not reliable, or that it is not authoritative.
The entire point of the conservative forum idea was to have a place where we did not have to constantly be defending the basic doctrines of our faith such as the inspiration, reliablity, and authority of scripture. If issues that are clearly dealt with in scripture are open to question, then the whole issue is pointless and useless.
Clearly we don't want to go down the route of debating those issues here or at this present time, but some of us would disagree that scripture does speak unambiguously on all of those issues.

[Simon_Templar]

Clearly we don't want to go down the route of debating those issues here or at this present time, but some of us would disagree that scripture does speak unambiguously on all of those issues.

Yes, and that is part of the point. Maybe I some how misunderstood the conversation in this thread, but when I made that post I was refering to what I want to see out of a conservative Anglican SUB-forum, not the main forum.

If we can't actually stipulate adherence to core conservative beliefs, there is little point in bothering with a conservative forum.

The more I see about the intended changes and Erwin's stated vision, the more I think it probably is unrealistic to set any rules.


The vision for the new culture of the forums outright states that if someone says they believe X, or Y, they basically can't be questioned on that. Further, there is no actual way to enforce rules even if you have them since no one can be warned or banned except for habitual abuse of other forum members.

Based on what Erwin said, setting rules on who is anglican, or who is conservative etc, seems to be an exercise in futility because all anyone has to do to meet the "criterion" is say "Hey I meet this standard" and from then on, that must be accepted, regardless of wether or not they actually do.

Again, even if a non-member debates in your forum, it would seem there is pretty much nothing you can do about it (no more warnings etc).

[ebia]

Yes, and that is part of the point. Maybe I some how misunderstood the conversation in this thread, but when I made that post I was refering to what I want to see out of a conservative Anglican SUB-forum, not the main forum.
I realise that, but I seem to be misunderstanding something about what you are saying (but I'm not entirely sure what at this point).

If we can't actually stipulate adherence to core conservative beliefs, there is little point in bothering with a conservative forum.
What 'core conservative' beliefs do you want to stipulate adherence to? One can hold to points #1, 2 & 3 above (without crossing ones fingers behind ones back) without holding a conservative position on everything in point 4.

The more I see about the intended changes and Erwin's stated vision, the more I think it probably is unrealistic to set any rules.


The vision for the new culture of the forums outright states that if someone says they believe X, or Y, they basically can't be questioned on that. Further, there is no actual way to enforce rules even if you have them since no one can be warned or banned except for habitual abuse of other forum members.

Based on what Erwin said, setting rules on who is anglican, or who is conservative etc, seems to be an exercise in futility because all anyone has to do to meet the "criterion" is say "Hey I meet this standard" and from then on, that must be accepted, regardless of wether or not they actually do.

Again, even if a non-member debates in your forum, it would seem there is pretty much nothing you can do about it (no more warnings etc).
I can't say I've looked into the enforcement side of the issue at all - I guess I'm naieve enough to believe that most people will abide by the rules with a gentle reminder. I'm more interested in what the rules actually are.

[Simon_Templar]

What 'core conservative' beliefs do you want to stipulate adherence to? One can hold to points #1, 2 & 3 above (without crossing ones fingers behind ones back) without holding a conservative position on everything in point 4.


Here is the issue, the vastly overwhelming majority of conservatives would disagree with this idea. Every conservative Christian I know, regardless of denomination would argue that point #2 necessitates #4.

[ebia]

Here is the issue, the vastly overwhelming majority of conservatives would disagree with this idea. Every conservative Christian I know, regardless of denomination would argue that point #2 necessitates #4.
Almost by definition. But if you want rules that work you are going to have to specify them in such a way that the rules themselves don't require a conservative interpretation (for lack of a better word). Or you accept the possibility that someone might wish to take a stand different from the normal conservative position on one of those issues but is prepared to do so from the point of view that scripture is authoratitive, etc.

If you want to insist on a conservative interpretation of scripture then you need to find some way of specifying that.

(I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, just trying to ensure that the rules chosen are likely to do what those proposing them want them to do.)

[Simon_Templar]

Almost by definition. But if you want rules that work you are going to have to specify them in such a way that the rules themselves don't require a conservative interpretation (for lack of a better word). Or you accept the possibility that someone might wish to take a stand different from the normal conservative position on one of those issues but is prepared to do so from the point of view that scripture is authoratitive, etc.

If you want to insist on a conservative interpretation of scripture then you need to find some way of specifying that.

(I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, just trying to ensure that the rules chosen are likely to do what those proposing them want them to do.)
Thats why I specified point 4 in the first place. The point of it is to reflect, on the common issues of contention, what the "conservative" interpetation of the scriptures and tradition is.

However, at this point (and probably for good) the point is moot. While this conversation may be worthwhile for clarifying the rules/purpose under discussion, more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that the entire issue of a subforum is unlikely to amount to anything satisfactory. Even if there ever is a subforum, which is questionable, I doubt there is any real purpose to it under the new vision of the forums.

[ebia]

Thats why I specified point 4 in the first place. The point of it is to reflect, on the common issues of contention, what the "conservative" interpetation of the scriptures and tradition is.
Ah. I think I was getting muddled about who said what.

[Simon_Templar]

Ah. I think I was getting muddled about who said what.
no problem