An STR Evangelical Anglican Subforum?

[EvAng]

What are your thoughts regarding the creation of a subforum within STR for evangelical Anglicans?

[Naomi4Christ]

Even though I am an evo, I think it is a bad idea - sorry :(

[EvAng]

Even though I am an evo, I think it is a bad idea - sorry :(

No appology needed. Would you care to explain why?

[PaladinValer]

NO.

This is an Anglican/Old Catholic forum. Evangelicals aren't separate from Anglo-Catholics, liberals aren't separate from conservatives, and high-churchers aren't separate from low-churchers. They are all together IN ONE CHURCH.

To have subforums is to suggest otherwise. It is to suggest an unhistoric Anglicanism.

[Naomi4Christ]

No appology needed. Would you care to explain why?
I like diversity. I don't want to talk to only like minded people - that would be half-a-dozen at most.

Plus, I feel that STR as a whole needs to more adequately reflect reality on the ground. This reality is of a diverse church with a rich heritage in all areas of the Christian faith. I don't want to particularly talk about evangelicalism with other evangelicals - I'd like to share what we do to everyone on STR and learn from other Anglican traditions about what makes them vibrant, living churches.

Also, I like to understand the issues that affect Anglicans worldwide, because we get so little of the politics of the communion in our church - anyone interested enough has to go outside of our church to find out this info, but I am not quite so interested as to read all the source material (very happy to read the summaries here :) ).

I think a problem of subforums for STR is that there simply isn't critical mass to keep them going. We can count in single figures the numbers that naturally belong to any one group. Even though theologically I might fit in a conservative group, I'm sorry to say that I don't want to really be a part of a conservative community.

[Naomi4Christ]

NO.

This is an Anglican/Old Catholic forum. Evangelicals aren't separate from Anglo-Catholics, liberals aren't separate from conservatives, and high-churchers aren't separate from low-churchers. They are all together IN ONE CHURCH.

To have subforums is to suggest otherwise. It is to suggest an unhistoric Anglicanism.
Moreover, I think that Anglicanism reflects the whole of Christianity in that we have every expression of faith in one Communion. This means that we can fully reflect the Christian Forums mission statement of uniting all Christians in one body.

[Aymn27]

It is good and healthy for like-minded people to "group" together, share their faith, struggles, etc...the problem comes in when they refuse to mix with others and/or think less of others...I doubt that will happen here b/c we are all Anglicans by choice - if we wanted to form our own perfect congregations, we would go to the RCC and other churches that think they alone have "the" truth...

[Naomi4Christ]

It is good and healthy for like-minded people to "group" together, share their faith, struggles, etc...the problem comes in when they refuse to mix with others and/or think less of others...I doubt that will happen here b/c we are all Anglicans by choice - if we wanted to form our own perfect congregations, we would go to the RCC and other churches that think they alone have "the" truth...
If I really, really wanted to just solicit evangelical opinions, I could make that clear in the title of the thread. The other 'divisions' could do the same. Alternatively, the title can easily give itself away, such as a recent one about vestments.

We could all just pledge not to trash other members of the body for their tradition. Maybe this could be a STR FSR.

[JasonV]

I think I'm ready for subforums in STR. We've been debating it as long as I've been here (which I admit is less than a year) and it seems like it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.

Worst case, it doesn't work out and we remove the sub-forums.

[EvAng]

If I really, really wanted to just solicit evangelical opinions, I could make that clear in the title of the thread. The other 'divisions' could do the same. Alternatively, the title can easily give itself away, such as a recent one about vestments.

We could all just pledge not to trash other members of the body for their tradition. Maybe this could be a STR FSR.

And you think that having a set of threads marked "FAO EVANGELICALS ONLY" is more inclusive than letting evangelicals have their own subforum? I don't buy it :sorry:

Furthermore, we are currently trying to decide on who is a member of STR. Why not let the rules as to who can post in the main STR forum be more lax and let others who wish more tighter rules set up their own subforums.

This would be far more inclusive IMO.

[Camden202]

Evangelical Anglicans in Sydney have their own forum.... its called General Synod!!!!!

Of course its less 'formal' now ... apparently its called 'progress'.

Back to the question at hand... ignoring my warped sense of humor for just one moment..... What is STR????

[EvAng]

It is good and healthy for like-minded people to "group" together, share their faith, struggles, etc...the problem comes in when they refuse to mix with others and/or think less of others...I doubt that will happen here b/c we are all Anglicans by choice - if we wanted to form our own perfect congregations, we would go to the RCC and other churches that think they alone have "the" truth...

:amen:

I think I'm ready for subforums in STR. We've been debating it as long as I've been here (which I admit is less than a year) and it seems like it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.

Worst case, it doesn't work out and we remove the sub-forums.

:amen: Best case senario...it works well attracting more people to STR both new and old.

[PaladinValer]

If Evangelicals get one, then I want these to also have one:

Anglo-Catholics
Middle-of-the Roaders (inbetween Anglo-Catholic and Evangelicals)
Open Evangelicals

I want also these to have their own subforums:

Liberals
Moderates
Conservatives

These too deserve their own subforum then:

high-churchers
broad-churchers
low-churchers

Finally, since they technically are Anglicans, even these:

Anglo-Papists
Anglo-Patriarchists
Anglo-Presbyterians

To deny any of these the right to have their own subforum too is to say "they aren't important enough."

And demand for them shouldn't be important. The fact that STR is home to Anglicans is enough. They are Anglicans, and for them to be singled out to not have subforums is rediculous if Evangelicals get their own.

And I will make a formal call for every single one of them constantly, every day, for them to have their subforums if any subforums are created that cater to a specific Anglican.

STR is for all Anglicans. Not for some to be elevated above others.

Edit: Still interested in subforums? Want to have to moderate all of those in addition?

[Inside Edge]

That's a pretty good point, PV.

As long as there's 2 members who want a sub-forum, we technically have to grant it in order to be fair and consistent. We could end up with a lot of sub-forums and a lot of moderation required.

In reality, it probably wouldn't turn out that way, but the potential is there.

[EvAng]

If Evangelicals get one, then I want these to also have one:

Well suggest them and if there is enough demand then so be it.

Anglo-Catholics

:amen:

Middle-of-the Roaders (inbetween Anglo-Catholic and Evangelicals)

How would these be defined? Anyone in STR fit the bill?

Open Evangelicals

Would be covered under an evangelical Anglican.

Liberals

:amen:

Moderates

Defined as....?

Conservatives

:amen:

high-churchers

How are these different from Anglo-Catholics?

broad-churchers

If there is the need fine.

low-churchers

How do these differ from evangelicals?

Anglo-Papists

How do these differ from Anglo-Catholics?

Anglo-Patriarchists

What are these?

Anglo-Presbyterians

:confused:

To deny any of these the right to have their own subforum too is to say "they aren't important enough."

No it is not. If there is a felt need and members desire them then I have no objection.

And I will make a formal call for every single one of them constantly, every day, for them to have their subforums if any subforums are created that cater to a specific Anglican.

Go for it :yawn:

STR is for all Anglicans.

Agreed, not just for the views of PaladinValer.

Edit: Still interested in subforums?

Absolutely!!

[PaladinValer]

Ladies and gentlemen, EvAng is admitting to suggesting near-chaos.

I need not say another word to illustrate why his idea is not good.

[EvAng]

Ladies and gentlemen, EvAng is admitting to suggesting near-chaos.

I need not say another word to illustrate why his idea is not good.

PaladinValer,
I am suggesting nothing of the sort. I am suggesting that if a group of Anglicans on STR wish to have a subforum for closer fellowship amongst like minded individuals then they should be allowed to do so.

You have set up a pointless example because such a senario would never happen. Your idea that all who call themselves Anglicans can peacefully coexist on one forum is absurd.

[PaladinValer]

It isn't absurd, because actually, it did happen.

In other words, I got STR itself as evidence that it can work.

You weren't here at the beginning, so I can excuse your innocent ignorance.

[longhair75]

Friends PaladinValer and EvAng,

The following is speaking as a member, not as a moderator:

Our immediate task is to hammer out a few specific rules upon which we can all agree, and come up with a plan for future organization. We can refine this as we go.

We do need to be civil, and treat each other with some respect if we are to be successful

[EvAng]

Our immediate task is to hammer out a few specific rules upon which we can all agree, and come up with a plan for future organization. We can refine this as we go.

:amen:

We do need to be civil, and treat each other with some respect if we are to be successful

:amen:

[Inside Edge]

You have set up a pointless example because such a senario would never happen. Your idea that all who call themselves Anglicans can peacefully coexist on one forum is absurd.
This is what I was getting at with my last comment in my last post: technically PV is right - we'd have to entertain/create any subforum that at least 2 members felt they could define and want to be a part of.

However, EvAng is coming down on the side of realism - some of PV's categories are redundant or could be clearly covered by other categores; and in all liklihood, there won't actually be a demand for that many subforums.

I don't know where I sit in between those two points of view. I do think it's a bit hazardous, though, to have a mechanism for a billion little subforums, even if it's highly unlikely we'd end up with so many.

[PaladinValer]

Conservative Evangelicals will fight with conservative Anglo-Catholics.

Liberal Anglo-Catholics will figh with conservative Anglo-Catholics.

So there would be a need for all those subforums.

[RadixLecti]

Conservative Evangelicals will fight with conservative Anglo-Catholics.

Liberal Anglo-Catholics will figh with conservative Anglo-Catholics.

So there would be a need for all those subforums.
I think most of the conservative evangelicals and anglo catholics would prefer to be in a subforum together.

[pmcleanj]

Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

So there would be a need for all those subforums.

There will be a need for all those subforums only if STR is a manifestation of the fruits of the flesh -- in which case it would be a far cry from the real-life Anglicanism I've been familiar with for the last several decades -- and calling it an Anglican forum would be a fraud.

Dissensions are condemned right there in Saint Paul's words together with sorcery and licentiousness; and physically structuring our forum on the basis of dissension would be equivalent to endorsing goddess-worship and "free love".


But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.

Your idea that all who call themselves Anglicans can peacefully coexist on one forum is absurd.

All that's needed for Anglicans go co-exist peacefully is for our posts to be manifest the fruits of the Spirit. It would be absurd to claim that Anglicanism cannot manifest the fruits of the Spirit, because we are the Church, born of that same Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

[karen freeinchristman]

All that's needed for Anglicans go co-exist peacefully is for our posts to be manifest the fruits of the Spirit. It would be absurd to claim that Anglicanism cannot manifest the fruits of the Spirit, because we are the Church, born of that same Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Alleluia, Amen! :thumbsup:

[PaladinValer]

There will be a need for all those subforums only if STR is a manifestation of the fruits of the flesh -- in which case it would be a far cry from the real-life Anglicanism I've been familiar with for the last several decades -- and calling it an Anglican forum would be a fraud.

I agree.

The reason why I said there would be a need for them is if even one were created. We'd need to create all the others, since they are all just as Anglican.

Of course, such anti-diversity is, as you've wisely and correctly said before, not Anglican. Furthermore, it says that Anglicans won't be able to go everywhere on STR and be treated the same, for specific-type subforums (be they liberal, broad-chuch, Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic, etc) will treat some Anglicans better than others. Not really Anglican at all.

Dissensions are condemned right there in Saint Paul's words together with sorcery and licentiousness; and physically structuring our forum on the basis of dissension would be equivalent to endorsing goddess-worship and "free love".

:amen:

All that's needed for Anglicans go co-exist peacefully is for our posts to be manifest the fruits of the Spirit. It would be absurd to claim that Anglicanism cannot manifest the fruits of the Spirit, because we are the Church, born of that same Spirit on the day of Pentecost.


:amen:

Pam, I'm so glad you're here! :hug:

[RadixLecti]

There will be a need for all those subforums only if STR is a manifestation of the fruits of the flesh -- in which case it would be a far cry from the real-life Anglicanism I've been familiar with for the last several decades -- and calling it an Anglican forum would be a fraud.

Dissensions are condemned right there in Saint Paul's words together with sorcery and licentiousness; and physically structuring our forum on the basis of dissension would be equivalent to endorsing goddess-worship and "free love".






All that's needed for Anglicans go co-exist peacefully is for our posts to be manifest the fruits of the Spirit. It would be absurd to claim that Anglicanism cannot manifest the fruits of the Spirit, because we are the Church, born of that same Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

Pamela, I LOVE the spirit of your post. The problem is that it assumes that all Anglicans believe the Bible has authority in defining what it means to be a Christian in the modern world. That is definitly not the case. With that said, I appreciate the direction you're going and I hope we can work together to find a practical solution to this problem.

[Simon_Templar]

I like diversity. I don't want to talk to only like minded people - that would be half-a-dozen at most.

Plus, I feel that STR as a whole needs to more adequately reflect reality on the ground. This reality is of a diverse church with a rich heritage in all areas of the Christian faith. I don't want to particularly talk about evangelicalism with other evangelicals - I'd like to share what we do to everyone on STR and learn from other Anglican traditions about what makes them vibrant, living churches.

Also, I like to understand the issues that affect Anglicans worldwide, because we get so little of the politics of the communion in our church - anyone interested enough has to go outside of our church to find out this info, but I am not quite so interested as to read all the source material (very happy to read the summaries here :) ).

I think a problem of subforums for STR is that there simply isn't critical mass to keep them going. We can count in single figures the numbers that naturally belong to any one group. Even though theologically I might fit in a conservative group, I'm sorry to say that I don't want to really be a part of a conservative community.
to me its not about being like minded. I want a forum where there are catholic beleivers, calvinist believers, evangelical believers, etc. To me its about being with people who share my Faith.

[Simon_Templar]

There will be a need for all those subforums only if STR is a manifestation of the fruits of the flesh -- in which case it would be a far cry from the real-life Anglicanism I've been familiar with for the last several decades -- and calling it an Anglican forum would be a fraud.

Dissensions are condemned right there in Saint Paul's words together with sorcery and licentiousness; and physically structuring our forum on the basis of dissension would be equivalent to endorsing goddess-worship and "free love".






All that's needed for Anglicans go co-exist peacefully is for our posts to be manifest the fruits of the Spirit. It would be absurd to claim that Anglicanism cannot manifest the fruits of the Spirit, because we are the Church, born of that same Spirit on the day of Pentecost.

great, when we ban licentiousness, pluralism and all the other unchristian non sense, then I'll support your sentiment. I, however, am called to be in unity with the light, not the darkness. I want no unity with those things.

[Naomi4Christ]

I'd like to add that I might have been well in there in the middle of major discussions, but I wouldn't say they were that bad. We've all come out the other side, and I'd like to think that STR smoothed off all my rough edges and made me a slightly more palatable member :) .

The notion of a safe haven is very alien to me and contrary to the Sermon on the Mount.

[PaladinValer]

Then how about a completely new congregational forum for Continuing Anglicans?

A subforum mean that you are still officially associating with the rest of us "in the darkness" folks. Since you don't want that, then it benefits you and it benefits those who don't want subforums.

[RadixLecti]

The notion of a safe haven is very alien to me and contrary to the Sermon on the Mount.

Could you expand on that for my own education?

[PaladinValer]

Subforums means you are still having unity with us "dark" people.

Why not have your own congregational forum?

[AveMaria]

Point of clarity:

Someone suggested that PV's suggestion of having separate sub-forums for Anglo-Catholics and high-church Anglicans (among other groups!) was redundant because those particular 2 groups would be in the same sub-forum, and I wanted to address that.

Anglo-Catholic refers to a theology.
High-church refers to a style of worship

There are low-church Anglo-Catholics, although to my knowledge, they're outnumbered by high-church Anglo-Catholics.

There are High-church Anglicans who are more reformed, evangelical, or protestant in their theology.

[Simon_Templar]

Then how about a completely new congregational forum for Continuing Anglicans?

A subforum mean that you are still officially associating with the rest of us "in the darkness" folks. Since you don't want that, then it benefits you and it benefits those who don't want subforums.
I'm not opposed to a seperate congregational forum, but you're assessment that its only continuers who hold this view is incorrect. I'm not technically a "continuing anglican" at least not yet. I don't think Cola is either. We don't have many members from global south provinces etc, but in principle there are probably more world wide anglicans who are in communion with canterbury who would agree with my views on orthodoxy than yours.

[EvAng]

I'm not opposed to a seperate congregational forum, but you're assessment that its only continuers who hold this view is incorrect. I'm not technically a "continuing anglican" at least not yet. I don't think Cola is either. We don't have many members from global south provinces etc, but in principle there are probably more world wide anglicans who are in communion with canterbury who would agree with my views on orthodoxy than yours.

:thumbsup:

[PaladinValer]

That's not the point whether they agree with you or not.

If you despise us such, then why associate at all? And the fact that you do despise us such, then you're already de jure a Continuer.

[EvAng]

That's not the point whether they agree with you or not.

If you despise us such, then why associate at all? And the fact that you do despise us such, then you're already de jure a Continuer.

You are the only one who has used the term "despise".

I for one am committed to STR and I despise no-one here.

I also desire a subforum which I believe will strengthen STR and attract more members. This is not unAnglican (as you claim) but is a part of recognising differences between Anglicans and building a place where all feel welcome and are welcome.

[Wigglesworth]

Those of you who want a subforum to be created in STR should table this agenda until the general rules of STR are voted upon and posted. The debate over subforums has been ongoing for a long time, and it has not produced a subforum yet. It's time to step back from this issue to lay a foundation before you start nailing the roof shingles to the bare earth.

If you want to remain in STR, then work on the STR rules now. If you don't want to remain in STR, you should request an alternative forum and work on building it. This STR subforum debate is not productive at the moment, and it is distracting us from something that must come earlier.

It would be advisable for those who want a subforum to post a poll with proposed subforum standards after the general forum standards have been adopted. This could be as early as two or three weeks down the road if people get back to work instead of dancing around the water cooler.

I think I am speaking objectively, since this discussion really has no impact on me, an Old Catholic who will not likely be welcome or interested in participating in any such subforum.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[Wigglesworth]

On the other hand, this may be the opportune time for change.

:)

[Aymn27]

Those of you who want a subforum to be created in STR should table this agenda until the general rules of STR are voted upon and posted. The debate over subforums has been ongoing for a long time, and it has not produced a subforum yet. It's time to step back from this issue to lay a foundation before you start nailing the roof shingles to the bare earth.

If you want to remain in STR, then work on the STR rules now. If you don't want to remain in STR, you should request an alternative forum and work on building it. This STR subforum debate is not productive at the moment, and it is distracting us from something that must come earlier.

It would be advisable for those who want a subforum to post a poll with proposed subforum standards after the general forum standards have been adopted. This could be as early as two or three weeks down the road if people get back to work instead of dancing around the water cooler.

I think I am speaking objectively, since this discussion really has no impact on me, an Old Catholic who will not likely be welcome or interested in participating in any such subforum.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:
I understand your and longhair's contention on this...I don't totally disagree...but my feelings/thoughts are that why not just overhaul the whole forum at once..that's what's going on with CF as a whole...Erwin's intention was to make the community more flexible, open, dynamic, etc...

I think if we just stick to the main forum, then we're going to get exactly what we had before..and the subfora issue will never be addressed again...or ignored like it has been three or four times now in the past...

Also, I think we need to decide if there will be subfora or not before we began making rules...we have to have common vision (aka "big picture") before we can start working on the details....just my .02

[longhair75]

I understand your and longhair's contention on this...I don't totally disagree...but my feelings/thoughts are that why not just overhaul the whole forum at once..that's what's going on with CF as a whole...Erwin's intention was to make the community more flexible, open, dynamic, etc...

I think if we just stick to the main forum, then we're going to get exactly what we had before..and the subfora issue will never be addressed again...or ignored like it has been three or four times now in the past...

Also, I think we need to decide if there will be subfora or not before we began making rules...we have to have common vision (aka "big picture") before we can start working on the details....just my .02
friend AmynI understand your and longhair's contention on this...I don't totally disagree...but my feelings/thoughts are that why not just overhaul the whole forum at once..that's what's going on with CF as a whole...Erwin's intention was to make the community more flexible, open, dynamic, etc...

We need to progress in an orderly fashion. We can not decide on rules, membership and subforums all at the same time. Chaos has been the order of the day so far.

I think if we just stick to the main forum, then we're going to get exactly what we had before..and the subfora issue will never be addressed again...or ignored like it has been three or four times now in the past...

As a moderator and a member, I will guarantee you that the subforum idea will not be ignored. Once we have a valid rule set and an idea of who will be voting and how the vote will be conducted, I will personally shepherd a motion and vote through on the subforum subject.

Also, I think we need to decide if there will be subfora or not before we began making rules...we have to have common vision (aka "big picture") before we can start working on the details....just my .02

Again. We will not ignore the subforum idea. we just have to get organized before we can discuss it fully and come to a consensus.