STR Membership

[EvAng]

Who should be considered an STR member?

[DeoJuvante]

None of the above. I would say that you have to be a baptised, communicant member of an Anglican or Old Catholic church. I do not personally consider any of the communities of the continuing movement to constitute an Anglican church but that is a different debate.

[Colabomb]

If continuers are voted off the board I will leave.

Part of what made old CF great is protection of the minorities.

[Albion]

It's a small point, but since the American church did not include the Athanasian Creed in its version of the Articles or elsewhere, I don't think it should be included in answer 2. Actually, the Nicene Creed says all that needs to be affirmed there.

[Albion]

None of the above. I would say that you have to be a baptised, communicant member of an Anglican or Old Catholic church. I do not personally consider any of the communities of the continuing movement to constitute an Anglican church but that is a different debate.

But you have no such problem with Old Catholics who have no connection to the Union of Utrecht being part of the STR family. :scratch:

[EvAng]

If continuers are voted off the board I will leave.

Continuing Anglicans are IMO Anglicans and I do not believe that they will be voted off STR. :)

[EvAng]

It's a small point, but since the American church did not include the Athanasian Creed in its version of the Articles or elsewhere, I don't think it should be included in answer 2.

I was not aware of that :)

[brightmorningstar]

How can anyone vote because 'they call themselves an Anglican.' ??
That would allow an atheist to be accepted as an Anglcan if he wanted to promote and change Anglcian belief into disbelief in God.
Someone could Anglicans dont believe in God, Mr X doesn't and he is an Anglcian.

[Colabomb]

But you have no such problem with Old Catholics who have no connection to the Union of Utrecht being part of the STR family. :scratch:

Good for you.

[Albion]

How can anyone vote because 'they call themselves an Anglican.' ??
That would allow an atheist to be accepted as an Anglcan if he wanted to promote and change Anglcian belief into disbelief in God.
Someone could Anglicans dont believe in God, Mr X doesn't and he is an Anglcian.

I appreciate that point but, by voting for anyone who affirms the Nicene, Apostles,' (and Athanasian) creeds, and only that, you are allowing people who don't even claim to be Anglicans or Old Catholics to be ordinary members. Since that takes in most of the world's Christians, whether Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, and so on, is this better?

[DeoJuvante]

But you have no such problem with Old Catholics who have no connection to the Union of Utrecht being part of the STR family. :scratch:

Yes I do. I'm nothing if not consistent.

[Secundulus]

How can anyone vote because 'they call themselves an Anglican.' ??
That would allow an atheist to be accepted as an Anglcan if he wanted to promote and change Anglcian belief into disbelief in God.
Someone could Anglicans dont believe in God, Mr X doesn't and he is an Anglcian.

Bp Spong is considered an Anglican, so how can we refuse the title to any other Gnostics or Diests?

[longhair75]

Before the great reshuffle you were considered a valid member of STR if you self identified as an Anglican. One of our more vocal members carries a Non-Denominational Icon, and attends a Vineyard Church. His status has never been challenged because he self identifies as an Anglican.

The Anglican Communion, by it's very nature, is a pretty broad tent.

[Wigglesworth]

Membership should mean the same thing now that it meant before 7/7/7. Nobody should be excluded now that was allowed to debate here before. To the contrary, the trend STR is moving toward as I read the current threads is to open the door to members who were previously not allowed to debate under the old rules.

[Inside Edge]

Membership should mean the same thing now that it meant before 7/7/7. Nobody should be excluded now that was allowed to debate here before. To the contrary, the trend STR is moving toward as I read the current threads is to open the door to members who were previously not allowed to debate under the old rules.
Precisely.

I really doubt atheists and the like will parade in and lie, self-identifying as Anglican. I think identifying yourself as Anglican implies you're Christian and at the very least, the Anglican Church is the one you are closest to (again I say, in the least). I really don't think anyone who has left the faith or is some kind of new-age pagan but happened to be Anglican at some point would actually identify themselves as Anglican.

And yes, a growing number of Anglicans have non-Nicean views or interpretations. Yet they attend Anglican churches every Sunday, self-identify as Anglicans, etc. We have to get used to/accept that and they should not be less privelaged on these boards as any other "Anglican."

[ebia]

It's a small point, but since the American church did not include the Athanasian Creed in its version of the Articles or elsewhere, I don't think it should be included in answer 2. Actually, the Nicene Creed says all that needs to be affirmed there.
Incidentally then, for the purposes of this and similar discussions, when people say "The 39 Articles" which version(s) do they mean? Are Americans to be held to the 'original' versions?

[ebia]

Precisely.

I really doubt atheists and the like will parade in and lie, self-identifying as Anglican. I think identifying yourself as Anglican implies you're Christian and at the very least, the Anglican Church is the one you are closest to (again I say, in the least). I really don't think anyone who has left the faith or is some kind of new-age pagan but happened to be Anglican at some point would actually identify themselves as Anglican.

And yes, a growing number of Anglicans have non-Nicean views or interpretations. Yet they attend Anglican churches every Sunday, self-identify as Anglicans, etc. We have to get used to/accept that and they should not be less privelaged on these boards as any other "Anglican."
:thumbsup: It would seem daft for STR to set definitions of what it is to be Anglican that are narrower than the reality of Anglican church congregations.