A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please

[PaladinValer]

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans here want a subforum for themselves so that don't associate with "Canterbury" Anglicans.

They want a place that, however, is historically not "Anglican;" for Anglicanism historically and traditionally is diverse and wide.

Since conservative to liberal, high-church to low-churche, and Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical "Canterbury" Anglicans almost unanimously don't want subforums and Continuing Anglicans want them, I come up with this potential solution.

I advocate a new congregational forum for the Continuing Anglicans. There they may impose their own rules and no longer officially associate "light with darkness" while the "Canterbury" Anglicans who don't want subforums get their way, welcoming diversity.

Please vote.

[Inside Edge]

Oh my. I sorta hate to start in on this, but here goes...

1) That was one mother-of-a-loaded poll post.

2) I'm pretty sure I'm a champion of the "don't kick people out of the Communion" kind of guy. So I would think that if a group wants to "leave," they should initiate it.

3) Isn't the reason they want a sub-forum because they don't necessarily feel they are "not Anglican?" Just that there's a distinctive vein that calls for a sub-forum?

4) For somewhat major changes like this, I would also think that a Mod would announce it as well, explaining timeline for discussion/debate and when the vote would be closed.

Those are just off the top of my head.

[Colabomb]

ridiculous

No one here has said they want to completely disengage the other side of the debate, just that they could have a resting place in a subforum.

[Wigglesworth]

It's interesting to note that no such poll as this was posted by a Continuing Anglican.

Peace be with you.

:crossrc:

[PaladinValer]

They've said they don't want to associate with the rest of us. This is a chance to put money where their mouths are.

I actually don't want there to be a split of any sort. But if their language stays the same, then it seems they want to split. I'm personally tired of "Canterbury" Anglicans, moderates, and liberals being called "non-Traditional," "unorthodox," and even "homosexuals."

[Wigglesworth]

I'm personally tired of "Canterbury" Anglicans, moderates, and liberals being called "non-Traditional," "unorthodox," and even "homosexuals."

I stand with you, my friend. I state here and now without hesitation that I reject entirely the notion that all moderates are homosexuals.

:preach:

[Colabomb]

How 'bout we let the Continuers speak for themselves? If they want such a forum, they will ask for it.

[PaladinValer]

Cola, read #5.

[Colabomb]

I've not seen them request another forum.

Let them ask for one if they want one.

[RadixLecti]

I stand with you, my friend. I state here and now without hesitation that I reject entirely the notion that all moderates are homosexuals.

:preach:
agreed

[Wigglesworth]

agreed

I question your sincerity as you stand there looking at me with no pants on.

[RadixLecti]

I question your sincerity as you stand there looking at me with no pants on.
:D I'm still protesting

[Aymn27]

:D I'm still protesting
cute legs ;)

see...even we conservatives can get a little freaky! rofl!

[RadixLecti]

cute legs ;)

see...even we conservatives can get a little freaky! rofl!
lol

[brightmorningstar]

I havent got a clue what the OP is about

[Aymn27]

I havent got a clue what the OP is about
PV is upset b/c we want a subforum for conservatives - he feels it's "schismatic", so, like the TEC he is trying to find a way to kick out every conservative in STR...

[DeoJuvante]

PV is upset b/c we want a subforum for conservatives - he feels it's "schismatic", so, like the TEC he is trying to find a way to kick out every conservative in STR...
So, you're not happy to share a church with all of the Canterbury Anglicans who are able to manage together, but you insist on sharing a forum. As long as you can kick out liberals. And, depending on your stripe, catholics or evangelicals.

[EvAng]

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans here want a subforum for themselves so that don't associate with "Canterbury" Anglicans.

I have not met any and who appointed you their spokes person. Young children sometimes have invisible friends but you have invisible enemies :doh:

They want a place that, however, is historically not "Anglican;" for Anglicanism historically and traditionally is diverse and wide.

According to whom? You? The same person who believes that because Anglicanism is so diverse called his poll "A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please" :doh:

Since conservative to liberal, high-church to low-churche, and Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical "Canterbury" Anglicans almost unanimously don't want subforums and Continuing Anglicans want them, I come up with this potential solution.

Where is your evidence for this assertion? :yawn:

I advocate a new congregational forum for the Continuing Anglicans.

That is up to you, I however voted against your idea. :)

[EvAng]

I havent got a clue what the OP is about

It is just PaladinValer's private vendetta against evangelical Anglicans. There is nothing new under the sun.

[DeoJuvante]

It is just PaladinValer's private vendetta against evangelical Anglicans. There is nothing new under the sun.
What does this have to do with evangelicals? And aren't you in communion with Canterbury anyway?

[EvAng]

What does this have to do with evangelicals?

PV has his knickers in a twist over evangelical Anglicans requesting their own subforum in STR.

And aren't you in communion with Canterbury anyway?

Indeed I am :preach:

[Colabomb]

I am also in communion with Canturbury, and I will stand up for our Continuing Brothers.

They are as anglican as we are, and they want to remain on STR. All they, and a few of us, have asked for is a subforum that allows them to assume the Validity of Nicea and the Scriptures in debate.

That is NOT the same as wanting separation from STR. Trust me, the main STR board will indeed be plenty active.

[ContraMundum]

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans here want a subforum for themselves so that don't associate with "Canterbury" Anglicans.

They want a place that, however, is historically not "Anglican;" for Anglicanism historically and traditionally is diverse and wide.

Since conservative to liberal, high-church to low-churche, and Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical "Canterbury" Anglicans almost unanimously don't want subforums and Continuing Anglicans want them, I come up with this potential solution.

I advocate a new congregational forum for the Continuing Anglicans. There they may impose their own rules and no longer officially associate "light with darkness" while the "Canterbury" Anglicans who don't want subforums get their way, welcoming diversity.

Please vote.


Can you please stop this kind of thing? It's a charicature of Continuers, and all this kind of thing does is make it harder for everyone who believes in both diversity and orthodoxy to bring unity to the communion.

I'm so sick of this kind of rhetoric. STR was just getting nice too.

[AngCath]

A seperate forum? I don't think that is necessary.
IF their is going to be a scheme of subforums I think Canterbury/Continuing is the way to go, but I don't think a whole new forum need be created.

My two cents as a "Canterbury" Anglican.

[ContraMundum]

It's a shame it's alienating people like Polycarp.

There must be a better way. I think I'm swinging to a generic "Anglican" forum and let's all try to live together.

[PaladinValer]

PV is upset b/c we want a subforum for conservatives - he feels it's "schismatic", so, like the TEC he is trying to find a way to kick out every conservative in STR...

Do you deny saying that you don't want to associate with "liberals and homosexuals"?

I'm not "upset" about a subforum for conservatives. I'm "upset" that people want subforums period.

And Aymn, read #5. There goes your wild and fanciful theories right out the door.

So, you're not happy to share a church with all of the Canterbury Anglicans who are able to manage together, but you insist on sharing a forum. As long as you can kick out liberals. And, depending on your stripe, catholics or evangelicals.

This is sort of what I think subforums mean.

I believe Anglicans should have full access to the entirety of STR. If we have subforums for specific-types of Anglicans, then no one Anglican can go everywhere in STR and be treated equally and have full rights. That is an unacceptable senario.

I have not met any and who appointed you their spokes person. Young children sometimes have invisible friends but you have invisible enemies

Really? And who appointed Aymn as their's? You wanna hash this at me? You better do the same to him too, or do you not because of a bias?

According to whom? You? The same person who believes that because Anglicanism is so diverse called his poll "A New Congregational Forum - Nicene Anglicans Only Vote Please"

The Creed is considered canon in Anglicanism is it not? Or do you reject that?

Where is your evidence for this assertion?

1. Poly
2. Pam
3. Myself
4. Karen
5. Higgs
6. AveMaria
7. Chalice

((shall I continue? I'm quite sure I can))

That is up to you, I however voted against your idea.

Read #5. Whose idea?

It is just PaladinValer's private vendetta against evangelical Anglicans. There is nothing new under the sun.

Who's imagining things?

What does this have to do with evangelicals? And aren't you in communion with Canterbury anyway?

Indeed, it has nothing to do with Evangelicals.

I am also in communion with Canturbury, and I will stand up for our Continuing Brothers.

Did you read #5?

They are as anglican as we are, and they want to remain on STR. All they, and a few of us, have asked for is a subforum that allows them to assume the Validity of Nicea and the Scriptures in debate.

Notice their 4th point. So us "homosexuals" would not apply under Simon's suggested formula. We just aren't "orthodox" enough, and he has suggested as such.

The words "orthodox," "traditional," and "progressive" are all loaded Colabomb. There need be only one STR, not General STR, Evangelical STR, Anglo-Catholic STR, moderate STR, etc. Just one.

You yourself often say Anglicanism is beyond just one particular Anglican body: here's your chance to put those words into action. Is Anglicanism truly beyond just one body? Or is it not and we need separate playgrounds?

That is NOT the same as wanting separation from STR. Trust me, the main STR board will indeed be plenty active.

It is separation. It splits us right into piece where one Anglican isn't considered "good enough" to have full rights in.

The real reason why the Lutherans schismed like they did is because LCMS and WELS have certain policies that absolutely forbid them to be in contact with any other Christian body that does not fit a minimum. Go to their "conservative Lutheran" subforum and ask them if so. Anglicanism, "Canterbury" and Continuing, on the other hand, have no such canons or rules or regulations.

If we were to do as they did, that says we are far worse than they: they at least had canons they had to follow: we just have our own prideful, inflated egos.

It's a shame it's alienating people like Polycarp.

There must be a better way. I think I'm swinging to a generic "Anglican" forum and let's all try to live together.

I'd be happy too (see #5). I'd be overjoyed to. That is all I actually want.

A seperate forum? I don't think that is necessary.
IF their is going to be a scheme of subforums I think Canterbury/Continuing is the way to go, but I don't think a whole new forum need be created.

Logically, if certain Continuers don't want to associate with "liberals and homosexuals" or "dark" people (using terms utilized by others), then since these liberal, homosexual, dark people still share the same forum, they are still associating with us. A subforum is a part of forum. If P then Q. And since both "dark" and "light" (what one Continuer called himself and others like him) are still equals in Q, then that's association. The only logical solution would then be to disassociate completely with a new congregational forum.

So as you can see, a new congregational forum isn't my idea. I myself, in post #5 on this thread, stated that I don't want that. All I did is draw up a thread with the only logical conclusion to what many Continuers want in terms of disassociation.

[EvAng]

The Creed is considered canon in Anglicanism is it not?

Indeed and there are some on STR who do not adhere to it. My point is that you attack me for wanting to exclude whilst you are doing enough excluding yourself :)

[Colabomb]

THe point EVANG was making Paladin, is that you speak about everyone having rights on the board, but then you have the voting closed to non-nicene Christians.

I believe Nicea is and should be a standard of Christianity, however you are being hypocritical in closing a thread where you profess to be arguing for open rights.

[Colabomb]

I also wonder where WE went, considering you are very critical of those who don't share your views for the board.

[PaladinValer]

THe point EVANG was making Paladin, is that you speak about everyone having rights on the board, but then you have the voting closed to non-nicene Christians.

Rights doesn't mean full equality.

I believe Nicea is and should be a standard of Christianity, however you are being hypocritical in closing a thread where you profess to be arguing for open rights.

Open rights? Never used that term; you just did however. Straw Man.

I also wonder where WE went, considering you are very critical of those who don't share your views for the board.

And how many concessions must I make to my own suggestion to prove WE? I've already have to some, and I've already specifically stated that I'm willing to go by entirely different suggestions.

[Crazy Liz]

I do not want to interfere with your discussions, but if anyone here wants to see an example of how a forum split can go bad, I invite you to come visit the Anabaptist forum and also to take a look at this thread in the Baptist forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5680088-baptist-anabaptist-reconciliaton.html

The Anabaptist forum was created because a group of Baptists wanted to kick everyone who wasn't Baptist out of the Baptist/Anabaptist forum - which also included Quakers and other Free Church Protestant denominations, like Christian & Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Covenant, Brethren, etc. A few statements by one or two Anabaptists about wishing for a more Anabaptist-oriented forum were presented as evidence that the Anabaptists wanted a separate forum. The Anabaptist forum has turned into a ghost town. The change did not take into consideration that it would end up excluding the "similar denominations" that had fit in the old forum. The lines between the two groups turned out not to be as clear as the decision-makers believed, and much hurt resulted.

The wisdom I have gleaned from this experience is that a new forum or subforum requested (or voted upon) without there first being a strong consensus among the group that will populate it is likely doomed not only to fail, but to result in ongoing hurt feelings for a long time to come.

I'm not a member of this forum, but I feel like beginning the discussion with a poll is more likely to foster feelings that some people are not wanted than it is to produce a viable new community in their own forum or subforum. I'm offering you an opportunity to learn from the painful experience of others. I would like to welcome you to the Anabaptist forum to ask questions about our experience (although I warn you, it may take a long time for anyone to see your post) or to the thread I started in the Baptist forum for us to reflect back on this split and attempt whatever kind of reconciliation is possible.

FWIW.

Crazy Liz

[Colabomb]

I do not want to interfere with your discussions, but if anyone here wants to see an example of how a forum split can go bad, I invite you to come visit the Anabaptist forum and also to take a look at this thread in the Baptist forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5680088-baptist-anabaptist-reconciliaton.html

The Anabaptist forum was created because a group of Baptists wanted to kick everyone who wasn't Baptist out of the Baptist/Anabaptist forum - which also included Quakers and other Free Church Protestant denominations, like Christian & Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Covenant, Brethren, etc. A few statements by one or two Anabaptists about wishing for a more Anabaptist-oriented forum were presented as evidence that the Anabaptists wanted a separate forum. The Anabaptist forum has turned into a ghost town. The change did not take into consideration that it would end up excluding the "similar denominations" that had fit in the old forum. The lines between the two groups turned out not to be as clear as the decision-makers believed, and much hurt resulted.

The wisdom I have gleaned from this experience is that a new forum or subforum requested (or voted upon) without there first being a strong consensus among the group that will populate it is likely doomed not only to fail, but to result in ongoing hurt feelings for a long time to come.

I'm not a member of this forum, but I feel like beginning the discussion with a poll is more likely to foster feelings that some people are not wanted than it is to produce a viable new community in their own forum or subforum. I'm offering you an opportunity to learn from the painful experience of others. I would like to welcome you to the Anabaptist forum to ask questions about our experience (although I warn you, it may take a long time for anyone to see your post) or to the thread I started in the Baptist forum for us to reflect back on this split and attempt whatever kind of reconciliation is possible.

FWIW.

Crazy Liz

For an example of subforums that went well, Look at the lutherans who are closer to us theologically and politically.

[PaladinValer]

Thank you, Crazy...that is another excellent reason why I do not want there to be subforums or even a new congregational forum.

[PaladinValer]

For an example of subforums that went well, Look at the lutherans who are closer to us theologically and politically.

Again, do Anglicans have official canons that state that we cannot associate officially with other Christian churches, denominations, and bodies?

That's why there are Lutheran subforums.

[Simon_Templar]

It seems that the Continuing Anglicans here want a subforum for themselves so that don't associate with "Canterbury" Anglicans.

They want a place that, however, is historically not "Anglican;" for Anglicanism historically and traditionally is diverse and wide.

Since conservative to liberal, high-church to low-churche, and Anglo-Catholic to Evangelical "Canterbury" Anglicans almost unanimously don't want subforums and Continuing Anglicans want them, I come up with this potential solution.

I advocate a new congregational forum for the Continuing Anglicans. There they may impose their own rules and no longer officially associate "light with darkness" while the "Canterbury" Anglicans who don't want subforums get their way, welcoming diversity.

Please vote.
I find it entertaining that you first started posting this idea in response to me, and I'm a member of the TEC. I go to services presided over by a TEC priest, I'm officially liscensed eucharistic minister of the TEC and assist at the alter in a TEC service.

Further, one of the major points of the series of posts regarding the need for a sub-forum, which set you off on this, was the necessity of enforcing a traditional adherence to the Nicene creed. Something you yourself have been fairly particular and exclusive about.

[Simon_Templar]

I do not want to interfere with your discussions, but if anyone here wants to see an example of how a forum split can go bad, I invite you to come visit the Anabaptist forum and also to take a look at this thread in the Baptist forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t5680088-baptist-anabaptist-reconciliaton.html

The Anabaptist forum was created because a group of Baptists wanted to kick everyone who wasn't Baptist out of the Baptist/Anabaptist forum - which also included Quakers and other Free Church Protestant denominations, like Christian & Missionary Alliance, Evangelical Covenant, Brethren, etc. A few statements by one or two Anabaptists about wishing for a more Anabaptist-oriented forum were presented as evidence that the Anabaptists wanted a separate forum. The Anabaptist forum has turned into a ghost town. The change did not take into consideration that it would end up excluding the "similar denominations" that had fit in the old forum. The lines between the two groups turned out not to be as clear as the decision-makers believed, and much hurt resulted.

The wisdom I have gleaned from this experience is that a new forum or subforum requested (or voted upon) without there first being a strong consensus among the group that will populate it is likely doomed not only to fail, but to result in ongoing hurt feelings for a long time to come.

I'm not a member of this forum, but I feel like beginning the discussion with a poll is more likely to foster feelings that some people are not wanted than it is to produce a viable new community in their own forum or subforum. I'm offering you an opportunity to learn from the painful experience of others. I would like to welcome you to the Anabaptist forum to ask questions about our experience (although I warn you, it may take a long time for anyone to see your post) or to the thread I started in the Baptist forum for us to reflect back on this split and attempt whatever kind of reconciliation is possible.

FWIW.

Crazy Liz
Thats fine, if there isn't the support for it, then there isn't.

What that means in the final draw is that there is no longer a place for me at CF because I am DONE putting up with listening people who claim a name, and claim to adhere to creeds, but then deny it on a daily basis with their actions (ie posts and threads).

[EvAng]

The Anabaptist forum was created because a group of Baptists wanted to kick everyone who wasn't Baptist out of the Baptist/Anabaptist forum...

Thank you for your input. :)

[PaladinValer]

Note your 4th point in your suggestion. Not all Nicene Anglicans will agree on what is sexual immorality, although I'm, quite sure what you meant by it.

Orthodox=/=conservative

[gtsecc]

What is worse?
Breaking Communion or female priests or Bishops who teach that sex out of wedlock is ok?

[Aymn27]

Note your 4th point in your suggestion. Not all Nicene Anglicans will agree on what is sexual immorality, although I'm, quite sure what you meant by it.

Orthodox=/=conservative
what the church as always taught...sex is only acceptable within the unity of a covenantial marriage between a man and a woman - nothing else flies..it's all sin..

[PaladinValer]

And so you claim all moderates and liberals aren't orthodox...

...and that is why I will never vote for it. Its language is loaded and biased.

[Polycarp1]

Just to be completely clear, I remain a member of Christian Forums and of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and a subscriber to the Nicene Creed (and in fact to the Lambeth Quadrilateral). I consider myself no longer a member of STR, because the sneers of people like Albion and Simon Templar at those who dare to disagree with their views are no longer something I can accept or tolerate. I do not wish to be told that I am unorthodox and heretical for following the commandments of Jesus Christ after the example taught by my bishop and the rector and priests of my parish. I've tried to work for union among the differing viewpoints here, by and large, while arguing against exclusionary attitudes. And I've had it in full with those who condemn me for doing my Christian duty.

I would take it as a courtesy if this post is not edited or deleted by a moderator. It's not my intent to flame anyone, but I would like to make it crystal clear to those who have condemned me for doing what I and my clergy feel is necessary to follow Christ, that I find it hurtful and insulting that they have done so.

[Simon_Templar]

And so you claim all moderates and liberals aren't orthodox...

...and that is why I will never vote for it. Its language is loaded and biased.
You yourself claim to recognize the authority of tradition. Well, thats what tradition says. Infact, its also stated in scripture, so both Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition speak on the issue, how can you claim to be orthodox and yet go completely against what they both say?
In the very first ecumenical council of the church, one of the only issues addressed as being of primary importance that all christians must adhere to, was "abstaining from sexual immorality".

You can not be orthodox and advocate a complete redefinition of what that means.

[PaladinValer]

You yourself claim to recognize the authority of tradition. Well, thats what tradition says. Infact, its also stated in scripture, so both Holy Scripture, and Holy Tradition speak on the issue, how can you claim to be orthodox and yet go completely against what they both say?

Holy Tradition and Holy Scripture speak nothing of it.

In the very first ecumenical council of the church, one of the only issues addressed as being of primary importance that all christians must adhere to, was "abstaining from sexual immorality".

An extremely ambiguous term.

You can not be orthodox and advocate a complete redefinition of what that means.

Saith you.

[Simon_Templar]

Just to be completely clear, I remain a member of Christian Forums and of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and a subscriber to the Nicene Creed (and in fact to the Lambeth Quadrilateral). I consider myself no longer a member of STR, because the sneers of people like Albion and Simon Templar at those who dare to disagree with their views are no longer something I can accept or tolerate. I do not wish to be told that I am unorthodox and heretical for following the commandments of Jesus Christ after the example taught by my bishop and the rector and priests of my parish. I've tried to work for union among the differing viewpoints here, by and large, while arguing against exclusionary attitudes. And I've had it in full with those who condemn me for doing my Christian duty.

I would take it as a courtesy if this post is not edited or deleted by a moderator. It's not my intent to flame anyone, but I would like to make it crystal clear to those who have condemned me for doing what I and my clergy feel is necessary to follow Christ, that I find it hurtful and insulting that they have done so.
once again insistance that we actually adhere to the things we claim to believe is not a personal prejudice.

it would be easy for me to claim that I adhere to the 39 articles and just redefine them as I see fit. (I even aluded to that in my recent suggestion for a subforum). I have made the point previously, and still would stand by it that in fact I don't actually agree with the 39 articles because once you redefine them as you see fit, they have ceased to be what they were intended to be.

The same thing happens when you redefine tradition, or when you redefine the nicene creed, or the gospel. You can claim you believe it but you're not longer talking abotu the SAME creed, gospel, or tradition.

I admit that I have been confrontational in the last couple of days here because I'm done beating around the bush and pretending that these issues don't exist. However, in the past, I have gone to pains to avoid "sneering" or condemning any of the members here no matter how strenuously I disagree with their views.

There are a couple of members here who whine and complain every time anyone disagrees with them, they pull out the persecuted self-righteous card whenever someone takes issue with their positions, but they have no trouble insinuating at every turn that those who disagree with them are hatemongers, bigots, and pharisees etc.

[gtsecc]

I think if someone identifies as Anglican - they are Anglican.

[Colabomb]

Just to be completely clear, I remain a member of Christian Forums and of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and a subscriber to the Nicene Creed (and in fact to the Lambeth Quadrilateral). I consider myself no longer a member of STR, because the sneers of people like Albion and Simon Templar at those who dare to disagree with their views are no longer something I can accept or tolerate. I do not wish to be told that I am unorthodox and heretical for following the commandments of Jesus Christ after the example taught by my bishop and the rector and priests of my parish. I've tried to work for union among the differing viewpoints here, by and large, while arguing against exclusionary attitudes. And I've had it in full with those who condemn me for doing my Christian duty.

I would take it as a courtesy if this post is not edited or deleted by a moderator. It's not my intent to flame anyone, but I would like to make it crystal clear to those who have condemned me for doing what I and my clergy feel is necessary to follow Christ, that I find it hurtful and insulting that they have done so.

Brother, i understand your frustration, and I do see a bit of unwillingness to give on the conservative side. However I also see it from the more left (althought not entirely libera) side as well.

It seems both sides are unwilling to make concessions to the other, and both sides like to accuse the other of being stubborn.

My ideas have been called closeminded and uncaring (not necessarily on STR). Most posters are stiff and stubborn right now, i understand you feel personally offended, but please realize friend that you are not the only one.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think if someone identifies as Anglican - they are Anglican.
:thumbsup:

[Albion]

Just to be completely clear, I remain a member of Christian Forums and of The Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and a subscriber to the Nicene Creed (and in fact to the Lambeth Quadrilateral). I consider myself no longer a member of STR, because the sneers of people like Albion and Simon Templar at those who dare to disagree with their views are no longer something I can accept or tolerate. I do not wish to be told that I am unorthodox and heretical for following the commandments of Jesus Christ after the example taught by my bishop and the rector and priests of my parish. I've tried to work for union among the differing viewpoints here, by and large, while arguing against exclusionary attitudes. And I've had it in full with those who condemn me for doing my Christian duty.

I would take it as a courtesy if this post is not edited or deleted by a moderator. It's not my intent to flame anyone, but I would like to make it crystal clear to those who have condemned me for doing what I and my clergy feel is necessary to follow Christ, that I find it hurtful and insulting that they have done so.

Pot...Kettle. You have used far more sneering and insulting language against traditional Anglicans whom you disagree with than anyone else here IMO. Who else calls bishops he does not agree with "Mr." and slides by the rules of the forum by prefacing any character assassination with something protective like calling the opinion "widely held" or "popularly believed to be," etc.? No one.

Even the name of a forum, such as David Virtue's (former) "Virtue Online" gets cutely reworked into "Vice Online" by you. How funny, huh? How unnecessary.

No, you impress some of the folks because you have a facility with words, but when it comes to congratulating yourself on your tolerance and civility and "Christian duty" to smash all who do not worship at the feet of TEC, you try for too much. That's your idea of working for unity: do not criticize TEC whatever it does.

Sorry to have to say all of that, but when you decided to include slandering me as part of your exit that isn't really an exit after all, just a change of icon, you necessitated a telling of the real facts.

[PaladinValer]

Pot...Kettle. You have used far more sneering and insulting language against traditional Anglicans whom you disagree with than anyone else here IMO.

Who's traditional again?

Who else calls bishops he does not agree with "Mr." and slides by the rules of the forum by prefacing any character assassination with something protective like calling the opinion "widely held" or "popularly believed to be," etc.? No one.

At least Mr. is respectful. I've seen worse used by others, especially by ultra-conservatives like yourself towards moderate and liberal clergy.

Even the name of a forum, such as David Virtue's (former) "Virtue Online" gets cutely reworked into "Vice Online" by you. How funny, huh? How unnecessary.

Unnecessary? Like using hidden language to force your camp to be the only one considered orthodox?

And in the times when I had read Polycarp use that term, it was usually when Mr. Virtue's personal opinions were touted and affirmed by ultra-conservatives, to which those opinions were pot-shots at TEC. Now, can you blame him for calling Virtue Online, "Vice Online"?

No, you impress some of the folks because you have a facility with words, but when it comes to congratulating yourself on your tolerance and civility and "Christian duty" to smash all who do not worship at the feet of TEC, you try for too much. That's your idea of working for unity: do not criticize TEC whatever it does.

There's a difference between criticism and accusing TEC of apostacy, heresy, abadonment, and even being non-Christian. Too often ultra-conservatives cross that line.

Sorry to have to say all of that, but when you decided to include slandering me as part of your exit that isn't really an exit after all, just a change of icon, you necessitated a telling of the real facts.

I remember a few over-the-line comments about TEC by you, so it isn't slander.

[DeoJuvante]

What is worse?
Breaking Communion or female priests or Bishops who teach that sex out of wedlock is ok?
This is not about who is right and who is wrong. It should be obvious to all by now that this is not a question that we are going to resolve on this forum. The question is who is Anglican and who is not. I do not understand how anyone can argue that to be Anglican means anything more or less than belonging to a church that belongs to the Anglican tradition and is in full communion with Canterbury. This is what it has always meant. Actually, I'm beginning to see why the Romans are so precious about Anglicans calling themselves Catholics.

[Colabomb]

I find your exclusiveness ironic.

Most Canturbury Anglicans don't even believe they have a monopoly on the Anglican Tradition.

[karen freeinchristman]

I find your exclusiveness ironic.

Most Canturbury Anglicans don't even believe they have a monopoly on the Anglican Tradition.
I think SO's view just proves how diverse a tradition we are!

[Albion]

This is not about who is right and who is wrong....The question is who is Anglican and who is not. I do not understand how anyone can argue that to be Anglican means anything more or less than belonging to a church that belongs to the Anglican tradition and is in full communion with Canterbury. This is what it has always meant.

You are correct that it is not about who is right doctrinally and who is wrong. It is about the forum.

You are wrong to believe that being an Anglican means being in communion with Canterbury since even Canterbury doesn't believe that, being on record itself as acknowledging the Continuers as "Anglicans."

Additionally, you don't oppose Old Catholics being part of the forum (neither do I), and they make NO claim to being Anglican. Your point is moot at best, therefore.

Now, back to how the forum can operate.

[gtsecc]

This is not about who is right and who is wrong. It should be obvious to all by now that this is not a question that we are going to resolve on this forum. The question is who is Anglican and who is not. I do not understand how anyone can argue that to be Anglican means anything more or less than belonging to a church that belongs to the Anglican tradition and is in full communion with Canterbury. This is what it has always meant. Actually, I'm beginning to see why the Romans are so precious about Anglicans calling themselves Catholics.

I am not sure what your comment has to do with my post.

My post pointed out a specific different stance that continuing churches and conservative TEC church have. Now, in this post I am not advocating for or against these positions, I am merely showing how places holding these positions react differently. For example, let’s say both oppose women priests and breaking communion. One Chooses to stay, because they believe breaking communion is worse. The other leaves because they think female ordination is worse.

[DeoJuvante]

I find your exclusiveness ironic.

Most Canturbury Anglicans don't even believe they have a monopoly on the Anglican Tradition.

Please note that I said in Anglican tradition and in communion with Canterbury. This does not imply that non-Anglican churches cannot stand in Anglican tradition.

You are correct that it is not about who is right doctrinally and who is wrong. It is about the forum.

You are wrong to believe that being an Anglican means being in communion with Canterbury since even Canterbury doesn't believe that, being on record itself as acknowledging the Continuers as "Anglicans."

Additionally, you don't oppose Old Catholics being part of the forum (neither do I), and they make NO claim to being Anglican. Your point is moot at best, therefore.

Now, back to how the forum can operate.

This forum is identified as a forum for Anglicans and Old Catholics. So I would expect it to be for Anglicans and Old Catholics. The title does not mention continuers. Whether or not Rowan Williams wants to extend them the courtesy of calling them 'Anglicans' is irrelevant. They have deliberately placed themselves out of communion with real Anglicans, presumably because they believe us Anglicans to be in error. Well, they can't have their cake and eat it too. From an Anglican perspective, continuers are in error and calling them 'Anglicans' is no more than courtesy. They have no more place here than I have in OBOB.

[DeoJuvante]

I am not sure what your comment has to do with my post.

My post pointed out a specific different stance that continuing churches and conservative TEC church have. Now, in this post I am not advocating for or against these positions, I am merely showing how places holding these positions react differently. For example, let’s say both oppose women priests and breaking communion. One Chooses to stay, because they believe breaking communion is worse. The other leaves because they think female ordination is worse.
Yes, but the one who stays decides that remaining Anglican is more important than this one question. The one who leaves decides that this question is more important than remaining Anglican. OK, fine - but why should they expect to be treated as though they were still Anglicans?

[gtsecc]

Yes, but the one who stays decides that remaining Anglican is more important than this one question. The one who leaves decides that this question is more important than remaining Anglican. OK, fine - but why should they expect to be treated as though they were still Anglicans?
Well, then this may get at a logical dividing line, if we have to - those in Communion with Canterbury.

[Colabomb]

I am a canturbury Anglican and I am proud to not only call continuers my brothers and sisters in Christ and the anglican tradition, but also to welcome them in the forum.

[DeoJuvante]

I am a canturbury Anglican and I am proud to not only call continuers my brothers and sisters in Christ and the anglican tradition, but also to welcome them in the forum.
Because they are hyper-conservative and agree with you on most points?

[Colabomb]

Because they are hyper-conservative and agree with you on most points?

No, because they are My Anglican Christian Bretheren. We share a Tradition several hundred years old.

Btw. I also welcome liberal Christians who disagree with me. Please tear down the strawman.

[DeoJuvante]

I might note that I am not opposed in principle to allowing continuers on this forum (but not as Anglicans per se). I merely resent the way that they misrepresent themselves as Anglican. It makes things on here far more complicated than they need to be.

[DeoJuvante]

No, because they are My Anglican Christian Bretheren. We share a Tradition several hundred years old.

Btw. I also welcome liberal Christians who disagree with me. Please tear down the strawman.
Even if they're not Anglican or Old Catholic?

[ContraMundum]

I might note that I am not opposed in principle to allowing continuers on this forum (but not as Anglicans per se). I merely resent the way that they misrepresent themselves as Anglican. It makes things on here far more complicated than they need to be.

The obvious problem with this comment is that being out of communion with Canterbury does not make one cease to be Anglican. In recent talks the ABC said so himself to some Continuing bishops.

A more sophisticated approach to this needs to be adopted, friend Saepius. What makes one an Anglican? Certainly not being in communion with the head of the Church of England, or the See of Canterbury (because there were Anglicans prior to there even being a See of Canterbury). The only answer is that an Anglican is a Christian who lives out his faith in the ancient Anglican tradition- and this has many forms and very permeable boundaries, both now and in history.

Furthermore to understand Continuers you need to understand their reasons for the current separation, and the Biblical and traditional obligation to separate from those whom one deems to have departed from orthodoxy (this cuts both ways, of course). Continuers claim that now is the time to separate, others think that is being too hasty. But, the bottom line is all both sides agree that the Biblical command to separate from "unbelievers" does indeed exist and is there for a reason. We currently disagree on the "when and why" of that, not the copmmand itself.

I think it is time for such rhetoric about people being "unAnglican" or accusing people of "misrepresenting themselves as Anglicans" and the like to be thrown out of discussion. It holds no theological basis (and this is now agreed upon by those that matter most in the current climate) and thus has no business being used in discussion between Anglican Christians seeking true unity with each other.

Also, for the record, I consider such language to be a flame against Continuers and thus a violation of forum rules. Try to understand and be more careful with your words.

[gtsecc]

Are muslim pastors in TEC Anglican?

[longhair75]

Are muslim pastors in TEC Anglican?
Since you asked in the plural form, one would assume that it is your contention that there are more than one Muslim Pastor in the TEC.

I would be interested in your sources for this information.

Dr Redding, the only TEC Priest who has also accepted Islam, has been censured by her Bishop and relieved of her resposibilities and privliges as a Priest as reported in your thread here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5649758-censured.html) So the answer to your question (absent new information you seem to be hinting at) is there are no Muslim Pastors in the TEC.

So, how many more are out there, that you would ask a question such as this? Or is this just part of your ongoing campaign to smear the TEC at any cost?

[gtsecc]

No - it is really a hypothetical question, but clearly a realistic one give recent events.

[Colabomb]

Even if they're not Anglican or Old Catholic?

Considering it is an Anglican board I would prefer they not debate.

[gtsecc]

is this just part of your ongoing campaign to smear the TEC at any cost?

Sure, but in some way I think the fault lies with the TEC more than with me. I mean seriously, the folks complaining about Ann Reading wouldn't be complaining if she wasn't a Muslim. This points to a serious issue relevant to this thread: All Anglicans are not Christians. Now, please don't think I am being mean. I am talking about Anglicans who would not claim to be Christian, or Anglicans who can't make any sort of logical case that they are Christian, for example Ann Reading. I think you are confusing the problem with the messenger.

[longhair75]

Friend gtsecc,

As you probably know, I was formerly a member of the Church of Rome. When it became impossible for me to agree with things that were happening in the Church of Rome, I did not spend a couple of years looking for ways to bash the Vatican, Pope, Bishops or Clergy. I shook the dust of Rome from my sandals and moved on.

[Albion]

This forum is identified as a forum for Anglicans and Old Catholics. So I would expect it to be for Anglicans and Old Catholics. The title does not mention continuers.

You mean "Continuing ANGLICAN Churches." We only say "continuers" for short. Most have the name "Anglican" in their legal names, which, as you know, is not the case with The Episcopal Church. Therefore, what you are offering is a value judgment about them "really" being Anglican or not in the same way that there are some people who insist that TEC apostasized in 1977 and so is no longer Christian, let alone Anglican. We can't run the forum on personal analyses like those.

[gtsecc]

Friend gtsecc,

As you probably know, I was formerly a member of the Church of Rome. When it became impossible for me to agree with things that were happening in the Church of Rome, I did not spend a couple of years looking for ways to bash the Vatican, Pope, Bishops or Clergy. I shook the dust of Rome from my sandals and moved on.
Again, I think you are mistaken - Muslims in our pulpits really are more damaging than the folks complaining about them. The folks complaining about them are helping the Church.

I understand you would like a more liberal Church – me too. But, what I have realized is, that unless the change happens in a certain way, we can’t claim to be the Church anymore.

[DeoJuvante]

You mean "Continuing ANGLICAN Churches." We only say "continuers" for short.

You may say 'continuers' as a shortened form of 'continuing Anglican churches' but as they are not Anglican, I refuse to call them such. Therefore when I say 'continuers', it is not in fact short for 'continuing Anglican churches' but a handy means to avoid spelling out 'those groups who, despite having chosen to discontinue being Anglicanism, having chosen to continue to use those aspects of Anglicanism which appeal to them, while simultaneously claiming to be Anglicanism.' Naturally, you would see why I prefer to type 'continuers'.

Most have the name "Anglican" in their legal names, which, as you know, is not the case with The Episcopal Church.

So, in your eyes, what makes one Anglican is belonging to a church with the word 'Anglican' in the name of its legal body corporate? If that is the case then I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

Therefore, what you are offering is a value judgment about them "really" being Anglican or not in the same way that there are some people who insist that TEC apostasized in 1977 and so is no longer Christian, let alone Anglican.

But they are self-declared Anglicans. It is they who have to prove that they are Anglican, not I who has to prove they are not. They are the Anglican equivalent of those sedevacantist groups who claim to be Catholic. It is absurd to take them seriously.

We can't run the forum on personal analyses like those.

Do you have some kind of objective analysis to propose, or is it your position that your personal analyses are inherently superior to mine?

[karen freeinchristman]

You may say 'continuers' as a shortened form of 'continuing Anglican churches' but as they are not Anglican, I refuse to call them such. Therefore when I say 'continuers', it is not in fact short for 'continuing Anglican churches' but a handy means to avoid spelling out 'those groups who, despite having chosen to discontinue being Anglicanism, having chosen to continue to use those aspects of Anglicanism which appeal to them, while simultaneously claiming to be Anglicanism.' Naturally, you would see why I prefer to type 'continuers'.



So, in your eyes, what makes one Anglican is belonging to a church with the word 'Anglican' in the name of its legal body corporate? If that is the case then I am afraid I have to disagree with you.



But they are self-declared Anglicans. It is they who have to prove that they are Anglican, not I who has to prove they are not. They are the Anglican equivalent of those sedevacantist groups who claim to be Catholic. It is absurd to take them seriously.



Do you have some kind of objective analysis to propose, or is it your position that your personal analyses are inherently superior to mine?
Saepius, isn't it enough that they use Prayer Books and they have bishops?

[Albion]

You may say 'continuers' as a shortened form of 'continuing Anglican churches' but as they are not Anglican, I refuse to call them such.

Then that's your problem. I recognize that, but at the same time I don't think most people believe that if you refuse to call Continuing Anglicans "Anglican" that this alone makes them not Anglican.

who, despite having chosen to discontinue being Anglicanism, having chosen to continue to use those aspects of Anglicanism which appeal to them,

Your choice of terms is one thing, but what you just wrote there is more than that. It is factually erroneous. The Continuing Anglican churches derived their bishops from ECUSA/TEC and stand in the normal episcopal succession that other Anglicans do. If they had merely set up shop with a bunch of prayerbooks, you might have a point. And if they had done that, they would not have earned--as they have--the recognition of Anglican bishops who hold membership in the Anglican Communion, diocese, provinces and national Anglican Churches including the Archbishop of Centerbury.

Naturally, you would see why I prefer to type 'continuers'.

I do, but it is somewhat sad that your preference is based upon misinformation. In addition, I think it's petty and beneath any of the posters here to choose their words in such an intentionally insulting way. I'm not persuaded at all that you have to do this in order to be able to live with yourself. I always refer to TEC as TEC or ECUSA, when according to your standards, I should be putting the words in quotes or finding some cute alternative term for TEC. We don't do that, regardless of any assessment of TEC.

So, in your eyes, what makes one Anglican is belonging to a church with the word 'Anglican' in the name of its legal body corporate?

No.

If that is the case then I am afraid I have to disagree with you.

Well then, we don't have that problem.

However, I am not fooled by the verbal slight of hand. It is not that they are legitimately Anglican that is at issue. It is whether or not you are willing to call any church body by its own name, whether or not you approve of every part of its theology. It's like calling President Bush "President" whether or not you voted for him or Queen Elizabeth "the queen" if you happen to oppose monarchy. How many other churches do you refuse to refer to by their given names, I wonder, because one of the words in the title do not square with your own personal theology? I guess you have already made it clear that none but the Roman Catholic Church can be called "Catholic" so are there others? What about any that use the words "Holy" or "United?"

It is they who have to prove that they are Anglican, not I who has to prove they are not.

Well, that's long since been done, so maybe this is just a discussion of how you haven't been keeping up.

Do you have some kind of objective analysis to propose, or is it your position that your personal analyses are inherently superior to mine?

Sure. I stand behind my point that we "can't run the forum" as a one-person forum and expect it to work. I consider that to be self-evident.