Wiki?

[EvAng]

Have we even got our wiki thing for rules like OBOB?

[longhair75]

I just got back up and running. I will find out

[longhair75]

I started one, but got a database error when I tried to submit it. It may show up like these empty threads did.

We will have our own Wiki as soon as I can get one established

[longhair75]

here is the STR Wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t5671358-wiki-str-wiki.html)

[JasonV]

Friend Longhair,

Why don't you start the Wiki rules?

[EvAng]

I just got back up and running. I will find out

No worries

[EvAng]

here is the STR Wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t5671358-wiki-str-wiki.html)

:thumbsup:

[EvAng]

Might I suggest:

To be considered a member of the STR forum with full posting privileges, including the right to debate, you must attend an Anglican Church and adhere to at least one of the following:

Articles of Religion
Ecumenical Creeds (how many are there?)

[RadixLecti]

Ecumenical Creeds (how many are there?)

Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian, the three creeds are already part of the 39 articles, so we might as well require just the three creeds.

[EvAng]

Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian, the three creeds are already part of the 39 articles, so we might as well require just the three creeds.

I was thinking of the ones our Anglo-Catholic brethren hold. Are there not 7?

[Fish and Bread]

Here was my contribution, thrown out here for discussion purposes as originally drafted, as I assume there will probably be a lot of editing back and forth before all is said and done. :):

"All those who consider themselves Anglican or who bare the Anglican icon for the purposes of their Christian Forums membership are welcome to fully participate in the life and work of this forum community, including participating in debates. All others are welcome for fellowship, questions and inquiries, non-debate discussion, and finally, at the discretion of the moderating team, limited congenial debate."

[gtsecc]

I was thinking of the ones our Anglo-Catholic brethren hold. Are there not 7?
You mean seven councils.

[RadixLecti]

I was thinking of the ones our Anglo-Catholic brethren hold. Are there not 7?
those are the seven ecumenical councils, which are also included in the 39 articles (although I'm not sure it specifies 7) But I think you have a good idea.

[EvAng]

"All those who consider themselves Anglican or who bare the Anglican icon for the purposes of their Christian Forums membership are welcome to fully participate in the life and work of this forum community, including participating in debates. All others are welcome for fellowship, questions and inquiries, non-debate discussion, and finally, at the discretion of the moderating team, limited congenial debate."

Sounds fine to me :)

[EvAng]

You mean seven councils.

I guess

[Secundulus]

Deleted

[PaladinValer]

Before we get into the wiki too much (like what TomUK wisely suggested), we should first establish a plan of action while looking at what other congregational forums and areas are doing (again, a wise suggestion by TomUK).

That being said, as I read the wiki, I already agree that the Nicene Creed should be used to describe who is going to be considered Christian in STR. That I believe should not change.

I think we should create a thread here on STR, stickied, that people can post in to say that they've changed the wiki. We can make it a rule that all changes in the wiki must be reported in the special thread, so that way we don't get any nasty surprises.

Secondly, I really think it would be wise that, after establishing a SHORT and BASIC wiki, that we make it so that it is against STR rules to change the wiki unless measures are approved as voted upon. That way we'll still have democracy, but it will be in an orderly fashion and avoid "the mob"

[longhair75]

Secondly, I really think it would be wise that, after establishing a SHORT and BASIC wiki, that we make it so that it is against STR rules to change the wiki unless measures are approved as voted upon. That way we'll still have democracy, but it will be in an orderly fashion and avoid "the mob"

I added a suggestion to this effect to the top of our wiki. there is also a dedicated wiki discussion thread with a link in my top post

[Colabomb]

What about the idea of a republic? Many hands voting on everything can be chaotic.

But if we have a congress of sorts, either Moderators or not, that are elected.... the voting would go by easier and faster, and if we don't like what is put up, we can challenge it or recall the congressperson?

A group of four or five perhaps?

[PaladinValer]

My suggestion allows a bicameral system, in which there are two houses: the House of Members and the House of Moderators, if you will:

Everyone receives only one vote. Even though Moderators are Members too, their vote is registered as a Mod vote and not as a Member vote. It is required that a majority in both houses be accomplished before any addition, subtraction, or edit to the rules is enacted.

I don't personally like a full republican style since there's a danger of STR becoming a politiking battleground. I think that the limited republicanism that exists in which the Mods are a House separate is enough.

[gtsecc]

This is hopeless

[EvAng]

Before we get into the wiki too much (like what TomUK wisely suggested), we should first establish a plan of action while looking at what other congregational forums and areas are doing (again, a wise suggestion by TomUK).

:amen:

That being said, as I read the wiki, I already agree that the Nicene Creed should be used to describe who is going to be considered Christian in STR. That I believe should not change.

:amen:

I think we should create a thread here on STR, stickied, that people can post in to say that they've changed the wiki. We can make it a rule that all changes in the wiki must be reported in the special thread, so that way we don't get any nasty surprises.

:amen:

Secondly, I really think it would be wise that, after establishing a SHORT and BASIC wiki, that we make it so that it is against STR rules to change the wiki unless measures are approved as voted upon. That way we'll still have democracy, but it will be in an orderly fashion and avoid "the mob"

:amen:

Is this the first time we have agreed on anything PV? :P

[PaladinValer]

No, but it is definitely a happy agreement : )

[Wigglesworth]

There is a discussion thread linked from the STR wiki where an explanation of amendments can be posted. I added a paragraph about Old Catholics and posted about it in the discussion thread.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[JasonV]

Umm, let's not forget that STR is both Anglicans and Old Catholics.

[Colabomb]

This is hopeless

Glen I am frustrated by the situation too. Erwin came out of nowhere and ripped away a perfectly functioning System and left it to the members to fight and scramble to set up a system from nothing that will please everyone.


However, it is what we have been given, and we have no choice but to leave or Try to build from the wreckage.........

[Colabomb]

Umm, let's not forget that STR is both Anglicans and Old Catholics.

Indeed.

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think affirming the Nicene Creed should be required for full membership or debate in this forum in light of the fact that some of the individual physical churches and parishes that fall under the banner of Anglican or Old Catholic for forum purposes do not always require the affirmation of the Nicene Creed for full membership. The "Liberal Catholic Church" (Old Catholic) and some Episcopalian parishes and dioceses would probably fall under the banner of not requiring such. If we are going to say this is the home congregation for members of those churches and like minded folks, then it doesn't make sense to put in place a requirement that would exclude them in any way from full participation in their home forum.

[JasonV]

Good point Fish &B.

While my church does say a modified version of the Nicene Creed in it's liturgies, it is not a required belief statement in my church. As such, were another LCC'er to join us here, they may be prevented from full membership if that rule is in force.

Unless we go back to the STR sub-forum idea with Conservative and Liberal boards?

[RadixLecti]

Good point Fish &B.

While my church does say a modified version of the Nicene Creed in it's liturgies, it is not a required belief statement in my church. As such, were another LCC'er to join us here, they may be prevented from full membership if that rule is in force.

Unless we go back to the STR sub-forum idea with Conservative and Liberal boards?
I think it might be ok to have a non nicene sub forum as long as there is also a strict nicene sub forum.

[PaladinValer]

I don't think affirming the Nicene Creed should be required for full membership or debate

I disagree.

in this forum in light of the fact that some of the individual physical churches and parishes that fall under the banner of Anglican or Old Catholic for forum purposes do not always require the affirmation of the Nicene Creed for full membership.

In the Anglican Church, it is actually necessary. Baptism and Confirmation are dependant on it. That is the official position, and one of the few topics that really is closed, despite whatever +Spong thinks.

The "Liberal Catholic Church" (Old Catholic) and some Episcopalian parishes and dioceses would probably fall under the banner of not requiring such.

Actually, from what I read from the official website of the Liberal Catholic Church International (LCC in the US), they do acknowledge the Nicene Creed as authoritative:

"The Liberal Catholic Church regards the Holy scriptures, the Creeds, and the Traditions of the Church as the means by which this teaching of Christ has been handed down to His followers. It regards them as fundamental, true, and sufficient as a basis of right understanding and right conduct."
-http://www.liberalcatholic.org/about/Principles.asp

If we are going to say this is the home congregation for members of those churches and like minded folks, then it doesn't make sense to put in place a requirement that would exclude them in any way from full participation in their home forum.

It would seem as if those would not technically be really be following official Anglicanism/Old Catholicism. Both the Anglican Church and Old Catholic Church, in their bodies, agree that the Nicene Creed is true and authoritative. While certain members within may disagree, STR should set a higher stand as we DO profess to be Christians in the traditional, classical, historical sense.

Good point Fish &B.

While my church does say a modified version of the Nicene Creed in it's liturgies, it is not a required belief statement in my church. As such, were another LCC'er to join us here, they may be prevented from full membership if that rule is in force.

Unless we go back to the STR sub-forum idea with Conservative and Liberal boards?

Forgive me, but is the LCCI (LCC in the US) your church? It would seem as if the Nicene Creed is authoritative and considered truth officially. Could you perhaps find an official document or statement by a governing body within that suggests or says otherwise?

Honest questions; nothing negatively meant.

[Colabomb]

gah, I didn't want to go to subforums, but if some insist on removing nicea as a standard, I believe we have come to the point that it is necessary.

Nicea is the most perfect summary of the faith mankind has created. If it something goes against Nicea, it goes against What Christianity is about.

[karen freeinchristman]

here is the STR Wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t5671358-wiki-str-wiki.html)
I just posted a spelling mistake in the comments thread. :sorry: It's about all I have the energy for at the moment. Wish I could give more input, but real life is so demanding at the moment.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think it might be ok to have a non nicene sub forum as long as there is also a strict nicene sub forum.
I'm trying to figure out what it means for someone to identify as Anglican or Old Catholic and yet be non-nicene. I'm probably too tired right now to try and figure that out.

[Fish and Bread]

In the Anglican Church, it is actually necessary. Baptism and Confirmation are dependant on it. That is the official position, and one of the few topics that really is closed, despite whatever +Spong thinks.

I see where you're coming from in affirming that position and believe you come by it honestly. However, we both know that the *on the ground* situation is quite different in many Episcopalian parishes. There are many Eucharists and baptisms and confirmations in which the Nicene is neither recited nor required to be affirmed. Many bishops, priests, and lay members could not affirm it in it's entirety and yet remain full members in good standing. So, if we make a rule requiring the affirmation of the Nicene Creed, the forum becomes de facto more restrictive than the churches on which the forum is based and thus leaves a lot of people without a forum home.

None of this is to say that some individual members of STR can't or wouldn't continue to view the Nicene Creed as a basic criteria of Christianity. That is all well and good. But in the forum, and for forum purposes only, some who differ in that perspective should be included as members, in my view, given various practical realities and in the spirit of Christian love.

[PaladinValer]

I don't believe it to be possible. I believe it to be impossible.

However, that doesn't mean that they cannot be partial members: my membership suggestion included a Fellowship Member level which allows limited debate, a vote on rules and a vote to elect, a vote to nominate a candidate, and also the opportunity to be a mod.

If that part of my suggestion were to pass, then the Nicene-question really is moot, since non-Christians would have quite a few rights in STR anyway.

[PaladinValer]

I see where you're coming from in affirming that position and believe you come by it honestly. However, we both know that the *on the ground* situation is quite different in many Episcopalian parishes.

In Anglicanism, the parish isn't the base: the base is the diocese.

There are many Eucharists and baptisms and confirmations in which the Nicene is neither recited nor required to be affirmed.

I see where your mistake is:

Anyone may receive, BUT NOT EVERYONE SHOULD. The priest or bishop isn't going to ask you "do you agree with the Nicene Creed?" but he or she will let you be your own judge and jury.

It is officially a necessity in Anglicanism and it looks like it is so in Old Catholicism too. Therefore, while non-Christians can receive if they so choose, canonically it is wrong for them to do.

Many bishops, priests, and lay members could not affirm it in it's entirety and yet remain full members in good standing.

Again, individuals, not officially.

So, if we make a rule requiring the affirmation of the Nicene Creed, the forum becomes de facto more restrictive than the churches on which the forum is based and thus leaves a lot of people without a forum home.

Then it is not longer an Anglican/Old Catholic forum. It no longer is a Christian forum.

You must realize that we want STR to still be Anglican/Old Catholic and Christian. You are asking us to abandon that.

What is needed is a solution in which STR remains an Anglican/Old Catholic HOME and is traditionally CHRISTIAN while allowing non-Christians a chance for membership, a say, a voice, and active participation. I honestly believe my membership system suggestion meets this need very handidly. I highly suggest you read it; it is on a thread longhair started.

None of this is to say that some individual members of STR can't or wouldn't continue to view the Nicene Creed as a basic criteria of Christianity. That is all well and good. But in the forum, and for forum purposes only, some who differ in that perspective should be included as members, in my view, given various practical realities and in the spirit of Christian love.

As I said, I have already come up with a solution that allows non-Christians limited power...even the chance to become moderators, while keeping STR Christian under the Nicene sense and allowing Anglicans/Old Catholics to retain STR as their home base. Please give that suggestion a look and tell me what you think in that thread.

Come up with your own ideas that will allow everyone to be happy if you want, but I can tell you right now that the vast majority of us here are not going to want to loose STR in a traditional Christian sense. What you are asking for is too much and is in a minority opinion which will not win. Compromise is necessary in any suggestion you come up with.

I fully realize that non-Christians are quite pleased with the new rules and rightly so. I welcome almost all of them. But in the congregational areas, non-Christians need to remember that those Anglicans and Old Catholics in STR, those Vatican Catholics in OBOB, and those Lutherans and Moravians in LC want their congregational forums to still be officially Christian and their homes. Please make that desire a part of your consideration, just as we are highly considering your arrival joyously into our home openly.

[Fish and Bread]

In Anglicanism, the parish isn't the base: the base is the diocese.

The diocese has historically defined as the faithful gathered around their bishop (cf attrib: Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century). Many bishops and their faithful in ECUSA have not required the affirmation of the Nicene Creed and even changed their liturgies accordingly (cf Diocese of Newark, under Bishop Spong).

I honestly believe my membership system suggestion meets this need very handidly.I appreciate the consideration for various differing groups of people you showed in your proposal. It is better than some possible alternatives, but still not in my view the ideal alternative. I feel like we've taken a great step forward to greater openness and diversity and, ultimately, unity in this forum with Erwin's adjustments and tend to see any degradation in the status of certain groups as a step backward, even if a not entirely horrid one.


I fully realize that non-Christians are quite pleased with the new rules and rightly so. I welcome almost all of them. But in the congregational areas, non-Christians need to remember that those Anglicans and Old Catholics in STR, those Vatican Catholics in OBOB, and those Lutherans and Moravians in LC want their congregational forums to still be officially Christian and their homes. Please make that desire a part of your consideration, just as we are highly considering your arrival joyously into our home openly.

I don't want to get caught up too much in labels and what we should or should not call each other. Ultimately, I see these forums in many respects as affinity groups, where people choose which group they most resemble or want to resemble, and contribute to that group. Is there any reason why it can't just be that simple? We're not an actual church, after all.

Also, I would strive to point out that this was my home, and many of the posters here my online family, for many years and I was basically forced out because a few of my beliefs changed. So it is not like I am some guy who showed up and wanted a say. I've been here in some form or another for a very long time.

[JasonV]

Hey PV. Just thought I'd respond to your question:

Actually, from what I read from the official website of the Liberal Catholic Church International (LCC in the US), they do acknowledge the Nicene Creed as authoritative:

"The Liberal Catholic Church regards the Holy scriptures, the Creeds, and the Traditions of the Church as the means by which this teaching of Christ has been handed down to His followers. It regards them as fundamental, true, and sufficient as a basis of right understanding and right conduct."
-http://www.liberalcatholic.org/about/Principles.asp

And this as well:


Forgive me, but is the LCCI (LCC in the US) your church? It would seem as if the Nicene Creed is authoritative and considered truth officially. Could you perhaps find an official document or statement by a governing body within that suggests or says otherwise?

Honest questions; nothing negatively meant.On the teachings page, at the bottom you would read this "The Liberal Catholic Church has as one of its basic tenets freedom of thought. It "permits to lay members entire freedom in the interpretation of Creeds, Scriptures and Tradition, and of the Liturgy. . . . We make no belief restrictions on lay members; instead, we ask questions about the prospective member's intentions. For example, in the Form of Admission to the Church we ask:
Wilt thou strive to live in the spirit of love with all mankind, and with all your will to fight against sin and selfishness?
Wilt thou strive to show forth in thy thoughts, thy words, and thy works, the power of God which is in thee?The Church requires that Clergy individually accept the following principles:
That Christ is present in the Sacraments and He is the Source of all Grace in those Sacraments.
That the Clergyman is 'as Christ's servant, and a steward of God's mysteries.'In addition, before his Consecration, a Bishop-Elect is asked to affirm, " Dost thou believe...in the Holy Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from whom, by whom, and in whom are all things in heaven and earth, visible and invisible, bodily and spiritual?" http://www.liberalcatholic.org/about/teachings.asp

So you see that members of the LCCI are free to interpret or even reject the Nicene creed if they wish. The clergy are expected to affirm the Presence of Christ in the Sacraments and a belief in the Trinity, but the Creeds, Tradition, and Scripture are left to individual conscience.

So the problem is that theoretically, one member of the LCCI here may believe in the Nicene creed, while another may not. Thus two people of the same denomination might have different posting privileges on this same forum! This is what F & B is driving at I believe.

[PaladinValer]

The diocese has historically defined as the faithful gathered around their bishop (cf attrib: Ignatius of Antioch, 1st century). Many bishops and their faithful in ECUSA have not required the affirmation of the Nicene Creed and even changed their liturgies accordingly (cf Diocese of Newark, under Bishop Spong).

The diocese is, however, subject under a metropolitan, so that if a bishop is in error, then although the bishop is in error, the diocese is still under another who is not.

I appreciate the consideration for various differing groups of people you showed in your proposal. It is better than some possible alternatives, but still not in my view the ideal alternative. I feel like we've taken a great step forward to greater openness and diversity and, ultimately, unity in this forum with Erwin's adjustments and tend to see any degradation in the status of certain groups as a step backward, even if a not entirely horrid one.

If you are asking us, however, to make STR completely open to non-Christians as defined by the Nicene Creed, you are not only in a minority position but are absolutely asking for the Christians as defined by the Creed to simply "give away" STR. You are asking for, IMO and probably in the opinion of most others, too much.

I don't want to get caught up too much in labels and what we should or should not call each other. Ultimately, I see these forums in many respects as affinity groups, where people choose which group they most resemble or want to resemble, and contribute to that group. Is there any reason why it can't just be that simple? We're not an actual church, after all.

We may not be a church, but most of us wish to keep STR canonically Christian and Anglican/Old Catholic.

Also, I would strive to point out that this was my home, and many of the posters here my online family, for many years and I was basically forced out because a few of my beliefs changed. So it is not like I am some guy who showed up and wanted a say. I've been here in some form or another for a very long time.

You never never forced out. You chose to leave. You knew what the rules were but you chose to follow your heart. While I think that shows great character and conviction, it also tells me that you want to have the cake and eat it too.

And while I do recognize the fact that you have been here a long time, you did voluntarily choose to leave your official membership when your beliefs changed. I'm certain you knew that was going to be a consequence, because I specifically remember your "good-bye" threads.

Hey PV. Just thought I'd respond to your question:



And this as well:

On the teachings page, at the bottom you would read thishttp://www.liberalcatholic.org/about/teachings.asp

So you see that members of the LCCI are free to interpret or even reject the Nicene creed if they wish. The clergy are expected to affirm the Presence of Christ in the Sacraments and a belief in the Trinity, but the Creeds, Tradition, and Scripture are left to individual conscience.

I see that now, but is not still the official position of your church the Nicene Creed? It would seem so.

So the problem is that theoretically, one member of the LCCI here may believe in the Nicene creed, while another may not. Thus two people of the same denomination might have different posting privileges on this same forum! This is what F & B is driving at I believe.

That very well may be a real consequence depending on how everything ends up. In addition, I can tell how frustrating that can possibly be.

However, again, you are both asking a great deal. I cannot stress this enough: STR has been Christian since its conception. And while CF is now open to all and that means STR must adapt, we have been given the power to keep as much of our old rules as we are allowed to by Erwin's disgression. We would like a Christian, Anglican/Old Catholic home that is open and gives power, voice, right, and privilege to other Christians and especially to non-Christias as well.

Technically, we don't have to give any power to non-Nicene Christians. However, from the support my suggestion has been given, many conservatives here are willing to give a rather large amount of power, privilege, rights, and voice. To name a few that those non-Nicene Christians who would be regulars here would enjoy:

1. The limited privilege to debate (you don't get that in OBOB)
2. The RIGHT to a single vote to add, change, or edit the rules. (again, not in OBOB)
3. The RIGHT to a single vote to elect moderators in STR. (directly, not indirectly through senior mod/supervisor!)
4. The PRIVILEGE to serve one reelectable term as a moderator in STR. (see 3)
5. The RIGHT to one (1) nominative vote to select STR moderator candidates. (again, not in OBOB)
6. The RIGHT to appeal moderator actions against them.
7. The RIGHT to call for a recall of a moderator (HUGE POWER!)
8. The RIGHT to propose an alteration to the current rules (HUGE POWER!)

The only rights non-Nicene Christian regulars in STR would not enjoy that would be enjoyed by Nicene Anglican/Old Catholics based on my suggestion are:

1. Unlimited Right to debate.
2. Two nominative votes instead of just one.
3. Automatically, if elected to become a moderator, serve two terms instead of just one.

That's it: JUST THOSE THREE.

And I'm quite sure that rules will be in place to protect non-Nicene Christians as well as non-Christians from being bashed to bits. I myself will NEVER vote for any measure that would allow such.

[Fish and Bread]

The diocese is, however, subject under a metropolitan, so that if a bishop is in error, then although the bishop is in error, the diocese is still under another who is not.

That is a theologically debatable point, but let's say it is true, who is ECUSA's metropolitan? The position no longer exists as such. The closest thing would be Bishop Schori, who I would imagine is just fine with non-Nicene Christians based on what I know of her, but in any event has not rendered any official ruling or tried to remove Bishop Spong from ministry or anything of the like.

If you are asking us, however, to make STR completely open to non-Christians as defined by the Nicene Creed, you are not only in a minority position but are absolutely asking for the Christians as defined by the Creed to simply "give away" STR. You are asking for, IMO and probably in the opinion of most others, too much.

I think I might need some breathing space from this discussion. I want to be as peaceable as possible and, honestly, that statement gets me a little hot under the collar. No one is being asked to give away anything. All of us who identify as Anglican for CF purposes share a forum equally. That's all I propose. You counter propose that some of us be second-class citizens. It's not a giveaway or tossing people out that I advocate, it's the exact opposite, it's sharing what we have and including more people as equals.

You never never forced out. You chose to leave. You knew what the rules were but you chose to follow your heart. While I think that shows great character and conviction, it also tells me that you want to have the cake and eat it too.

Staying would have entailed an implicit lie under the then-current rules. I am a very truthful kind of guy. So I changed my icon so that I would not be implicitly lying, but that did not mean I wanted to leave. I chose to leave rather than lie. I'd rather have been able to be honest and stay, ideally. But I chose the best of the two options I had -- the one that would allow me to be truthful.

However, from the support my suggestion has been given, many conservatives here are willing to give a rather large amount of power, privilege, rights, and voice.

That is great and I am happy for it. It is better to be a second-class citizen than not a citizen at all. Still, better, though, is to be a first-class citizen alongside everyone else. Equality wouldn't hurt anyone, really, but it'd create a more just form. Nicenes would still be in the majority by a huge margin.

[RadixLecti]

T
I am a very truthful kind of guy. So I changed my icon so that I would not be implicitly lying, but that did not mean I wanted to leave. I chose to leave rather than lie. I'd rather have been able to be honest and stay, ideally. But I chose the best of the two options I had -- the one that would allow me to be truthful.


:thumbsup:

[PaladinValer]

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.

[Fish and Bread]

.

[Fish and Bread]

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.

I guess the forum will never get to heaven then. All the time in the world in purgatory just won't help our poor friend "STR", who is clearly outside the church. :P

My point with that jest is: It's just a forum. Not an individual soul. Not a church. It's a place where people can discuss things as members of a community interested in Anglicanism and Old Catholicism and the like. Being a member of the forum doesn't say anything about anyone's salvation or what it means to be Christian or what the criteria should be to enter a church. It just means they're part of our little online group. It doesn't say anything about God and what God thinks. God can handle that himself, and through his Church (or churches, or whatever).

So, why not be inclusive instead of hanging up the "no blacks allowed" and "irish need not apply" signs?

[PaladinValer]

Fish, take a look at the other congregational wikis.

If my suggestion were to be voted upon and enacted, which congregational forum would be inclusive that is tied to specific churches and denominations?

With all due respect, you'd be getting more than anything you'd get other places.

[Fish and Bread]

Fish, take a look at the other congregational wikis.

If my suggestion were to be voted upon and enacted, which congregational forum would be inclusive that is tied to specific churches and denominations?

With all due respect, you'd be getting more than anything you'd get other places.

Do we want to settle for being "better" than the other places if it's not the best that we can be? Or do we want to optimize our forum to be as just and as inclusive as people within the constraints of the purpose of the forum? I think that is the question before us all. I ask here, because this is the forum I've been a member of and want to be a full member of as I used to be, and because there are many Anglican and Old Catholic clergy and laity who don't share all the views expressed in the Nicene Creed, and also because the group of Anglicans and Old Catholics we have assembled are the most reasonable inclusive loving just people I know on CF. You're right that a lot of other forums wouldn't even consider what we are asking for, but I believe STR can do more than they can.

[PaladinValer]

Do we want to settle for being "better" than the other places if it's not the best that we can be? Or do we want to optimize our forum to be as just and as inclusive as people within the constraints of the purpose of the forum?

There's a difference between inclusivity and universalism however. You are equivocating the two.

I think that is the question before us all.

You are asking the same question, just rephasing it differently.

Inclusivity is allowing everyone to participate, but not necessarily everyone being equal. Universalism is allowing everyone to participate equally.

I ask here, because this is the forum I've been a member of and want to be a full member of as I used to be, and because there are many Anglican and Old Catholic clergy and laity who don't share all the views expressed in the Nicene Creed, and also because the group of Anglicans and Old Catholics we have assembled are the most reasonable inclusive loving just people I know on CF.

You mean universalistic, not inclusive.

I don't recognize +Spong as licit. He isn't even a diocesan bishop anymore anyway. To quote a real theologian here on STR, "he's thrown away something precious." -Polycarp1. Bringing him up is not going to help anyone, as liberals to conservatives agree that he is in a class all to himself in a sense.

You're right that a lot of other forums wouldn't even consider what we are asking for, but I believe STR can do more than they can.

And so far, we are doing more than they can, but we are 99.99% not likely to allow universalism.

[JasonV]

I see that now, but is not still the official position of your church the Nicene Creed? It would seem so.

Looking over the very few "official" statements of my Church, you do seem to be correct. Again, from the "Statement of Principles":

"The Liberal Catholic Church regards the Holy Scriptures, the Creeds, and the Traditions of the Church as the means by which this teaching of Christ has been handed down to His followers. It regards them as fundamental, true, and sufficient as a basis of right understanding and right conduct.

The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are authorized for use in the Liturgy of the Liberal Catholic Church." (As written in Fr. Wagner's "A Catechism of the Liberal Catholic Church, 114.)

Essentially, we accept as members those who do not believe in the Scriptures, Creeds, and Traditions of the Church, but we hope that they will eventually come to a "proper" understanding of these things in time.

That "proper" understanding is never defined dogmatically, and considering the rather unorthodox nature of my Church, I have no idea just what "proper" really is.

Of course, I think it's best that we don't define it, as that is one of the things that draws wanderers to our Church.

I wonder if perhaps STR could follow the LCCI's example here, and allow those who self-identify as Angican or Old Catholic full rights and benefits, recognizing that some may not accept the Orthodox position of interpreting the Scriptures, Creeds, etc. But instead of fostering a second class membership on said individuals, guiding them in orthdodoxy and through prayer and revelation, allowing that someday, God will lead them into all truth.

[PaladinValer]

My suggestion in membership is stepped so that it encourages orthodox Anglicans/Old Catholics to teach and instruct in word and deed non-Nicene Chrsitians as well as non-Christians and non-Anglicans/Old Catholics to become Anglicans/Old Catholics.

And I really would call even Fellowship Membership "second class" with all the rights and privileges they'd get, especially the privilege, however limited, to debate as well as the right to vote, be elected mods, etc.

And really, Associate Membership is pretty decent too.

I really should just post my suggestion again now that I've organized it nicely...

[Fish and Bread]

There's a difference between inclusivity and universalism however. You are equivocating the two.


No, I actually wrote the part of the wiki rules that does not extend full debating privileges (rather partial) to those who don't either consider themselves Anglicans (or OC) for CF purposes or adopt the Anglican (or OC) icon for CF purposes. I have another proposal that would extend unlimited debate to two additional groups (the RCC and EO). Thus it is inclusive, but *not* universal, even if both proposals were adopted. Someone who identifies as a Baptist for CF purposes or wears a CF Muslim icon would have some limitations on how much they could debate at moderator discretion. Basically, my rule says if you choose any of the 2-4 icons or identifications in the category group I mentioned as primary, you're a full member, but if you choose an icon or identification outside that group as primary, you have some very small limitations. In other words, you choose to belong to this group through use of icon or way of describing yourself as "Anglican" or "Old Catholic" for CF purposes, possibly extending to "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" if that part of it were approved. No creeds, no doctrinal tests -- just your choice in your primary identity of where you want to belong.

[PaladinValer]

No, I actually wrote the part of the wiki rules that does not extend full debating privileges (rather partial) to those who don't either consider themselves Anglicans (or OC) for CF purposes or adopt the Anglican (or OC) icon for CF purposes.

But we need to vote on changes before we make them.

I have another proposal that would extend unlimited debate to two additional groups (the RCC and EO).

Even I wouldn't go there, plus that can be extremely disruptive.

The right to limited debate for them (who would qualify as Associate Members on my suggestion's scale) is best.

Thus it is inclusive, but *not* universal, even if both proposals were adopted.

It is universal when in reality only Baptized and Confirmed Anglicans in good standing who have been regulars for at least a month and maintain that regular status should have the right to unlimited debate. It is our forum, not their's.

Someone who identifies as a Baptist for CF purposes or wears a CF Muslim icon would have some limitations on how much they could debate at moderator discretion.

I agree, which is why I feel they, as Fellowship Members on my scale, should receive the privilege of limited debate.

Basically, my rule says if you choose any of the 2-4 icons or identifications in the category group I mentioned as primary, you're a full member, but if you choose an icon or identification outside that group as primary, you have some very small limitations.

You make them too small. This should be a home for Anglicans/Old Catholics, not a battleground between us and Baptists, Muslims, and Vatican Catholics!

In other words, you choose to belong to this group through use of icon or way of describing yourself as "Anglican" or "Old Catholic" for CF purposes, possibly extending to "Roman Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" if that part of it were approved. No creeds, no doctrinal tests -- just your choice in your primary identity of where you want to belong.

No Creeds=No Anglicanism/Old Catholicism. No, Creeds are a must and a necessity. They are an unescapable part of being Anglican/Old Catholic.

[Fish and Bread]

I am not sure it does us much good to continue further along these lines, Paladin. We might as well agree to disagree and cast contrary votes when the time comes and then graciously accept the outcome, whatever it may be.