Motion: Approve the Wiki [Archive]

View Full Version : Motion: Approve the Wiki

Wigglesworth

12th July 2007, 12:48 PM

We need to bring some order to the chaos we have now. We are getting nowhere fast.

I would suggest a parlimentary style: You have an idea? Put it forth as a motion. Once the motion is seconded, we should designate a time frame for discussion. Once the time frame is expired, a poll would be created where all could vote on the proposal.

I move for a poll to approve the STR wiki as it currently exists as the provisional ruleset for STR.

Inside Edge

12th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Sounds good to me.

Fish and Bread

12th July 2007, 01:19 PM

"Aye" for starting polling, provided that the post itself includes the complete text of the rules we're voting on (Since otherwise the wiki itself could change mid-polling and people could wind up voting for or against something they didn't intend to).

Secundulus

12th July 2007, 01:20 PM

I move for a poll to approve the STR wiki as it currently exists as the provisional ruleset for STR.

I am officially confused. What are we agreeing to? I personally don't agree to any subforums that further divide Anglicanism. If we have to divide ourselves into so many subforums then the whole notion of Anglicanism is a farce. We have enough division as it is.

We ought to be able to discuss our differences openly. If someone's opinion cannot withstand criticism then it is not worth having.

The only subforum that might be worth having is one for non-Anglicans to post questions or debate. Past that, I will not agree.

longhair75

12th July 2007, 01:23 PM

If I may facilitate this and put a time frame into place for the discussion, I would suggest that 24 hours would maybe work. We have people from a few continents here, and the time zone issues need to be fair.

I have 17:23 greenwich mean time on July 12 as the benchmark. I would suggest 17:30 GMT July 13 as the close of discussion on this motion

longhair75

12th July 2007, 01:27 PM

longhair75

12th July 2007, 01:29 PM

For the purposes of this discussion, would everyone please refrain from modifying the Wiki while we are discussing and voting to adopt this rule set?

The Wiki does not need to be closed and set in stone. once we have a rule set, we can modify it by this procedure. What this motion is calling for is to adopt this as our begining set of rules.

EvAng

12th July 2007, 01:38 PM

I would second the call and add that IMO we ought keep the poll open four days :)

karen freeinchristman

12th July 2007, 01:43 PM

I move for a poll to approve the STR wiki as it currently exists as the provisional ruleset for STR.
:thumbsup:

longhair75

12th July 2007, 01:55 PM

Friend EvAng,

How about 17:30 GMT Sunday the 15th?

EvAng

12th July 2007, 02:01 PM

Friend EvAng,

How about 17:30 GMT Sunday the 15th?

Go for it mate.

PS: Just call me Richard :)

Secundulus

12th July 2007, 02:03 PM

Wigglesworth

12th July 2007, 02:37 PM

Good progress.

PaladinValer

12th July 2007, 03:19 PM

I think the wiki needs to say something about the Nicene Creed being the final voice of what orthodoxy is and that it is an official and unalterable stance of Anglicanism/Old Catholicism.

JasonV

12th July 2007, 04:10 PM

Well we can alter the Wiki later PV. Right now we're just voting to have the wiki become an official starting point.

My vote is yes. We need to make some progress here.

PaladinValer

12th July 2007, 04:20 PM

So long it is provisional, then yes, it shall get my vote.

longhair75

12th July 2007, 04:54 PM

Friend PaladinValer,

Yes, The motion is to provisionally accept the Wiki as it is now as a starting place to develop rules for our forum.

Colabomb

12th July 2007, 04:57 PM

Undecided, let me look it over some more.

karen freeinchristman

12th July 2007, 05:20 PM

Actually I agree with all what is in the Wiki at the moment, but to me, much of it doesn't belong in there as specifically 'rules of STR'. Alot of it is descriptive of Anglicanism, and IMO is making the whole 'rules' thing misleadingly complicated.

karen freeinchristman

12th July 2007, 05:25 PM

I just read the OBOB rules, and theirs is so uncomplicated. Simply put, it is a two levelled thing (Catholics v. Non-Catholics), similar to what I suggested before.

*Anglicans/Old Catholics are members
*Non-Anglicans/Old Catholics are welcome guests that cannot go beyond certain levels of debate but may participate in fellowship, questions, discussion, and (within boundaries set by us) polite debate.

Inside Edge

12th July 2007, 05:44 PM

Albion

12th July 2007, 06:25 PM

Friend Segundulus

We are discussing adopting the provisional forum rules in the current Wiki. We are not discussing subforums here.

The current form of the Wiki can be found here (http://www.christianforums.com/t5671358-wiki-str-wiki.html)

I can live with the Wiki for the most part, but I'd only vote for a statement in which the person has to at least identify himself as Anglican or Old Catholic by "bearing" the faith icon of one of the two, and the current Wiki doesn't do that.

Maybe that's somewhat along Karen's lines of thinking, although she may not see it that way.

Albion

12th July 2007, 06:37 PM

:sigh: Oh, Karen.

We don't like simplicity here. Haven't you learned? :)

*Anglicans/Old Catholics are members
But what about Anglicans who don't accept the Nicene Creed? Are they even Anglicans? Should they then be members? What about Anglicans who accept the Creed but really don't because they've really just reinterpreted the Creed for their own peace of mind? What about Anglicans who think we should reconcile with Rome and the Pope? What about Anglicans who think church is for hosers? What about Anglicans who don't like Jesus? What about Pagan Anglicans that pray to Zeus and Aphrodite? What if Batman and Superman came on the boards and claimed to be Anglican? Would we then have to grant all superheroes membership?

We need contigencies, can't you see?

I have great sympathy for what you are saying. Alas, I don't know how to draw that line since many of those who hold the extreme ideas that you mention will say that they accept whatever creed is thrown up before them, albeit with their own interpretation of every word in it.

I guess I'd go so far as to support you in asking them to say yes or no to such as the Nicene Creed (or the Articles, for that matter), but only a few who don't believe what is written in them will deny themselves being here by admitting that they absolutely do not. There will be many more who will agree while holding a mental reservation, and as I mentioned in my last post, all that is necessary is for them to belong to or identify with a church whose orders come from Utrecht. That includes many of the created-for-homosexuals church bodies and most of the theosophists, etc., so widely diffused are these lines of succession these days.

Inside Edge

12th July 2007, 08:12 PM

I know, Albion. And I wasn't actually proposing a line be drawn, I was just being a bit ridiculous to make a point.

Really, I'm all for a wide-open STR that has subforums that has restrictions or limits based on discussion criteria (as opposed to members).

In essence, I think we all must accept the big, giant tent that is Anglicanism, that we all have to accept people in this forum the way we would people attending our churches (so we may have members that are non-nicean despite even the most liberal churches still being, technically, nicean); and I thinnk a few sub-forums will take care of the need for focused discussion that some of us would like.

Wigglesworth

12th July 2007, 09:38 PM

I can live with the Wiki for the most part, but I'd only vote for a statement in which the person has to at least identify himself as Anglican or Old Catholic by "bearing" the faith icon of one of the two, and the current Wiki doesn't do that.

Maybe that's somewhat along Karen's lines of thinking, although she may not see it that way.

We are not allowed to use the faith icon as a criterion for deciding who can debate. This has been a major point of contention over in the Pentecostal subforum of SFPC, and the people upstairs have spoken.

Peace.

:crossrc:

longhair75

12th July 2007, 10:04 PM

I can live with the Wiki for the most part, but I'd only vote for a statement in which the person has to at least identify himself as Anglican or Old Catholic by "bearing" the faith icon of one of the two, and the current Wiki doesn't do that.

Maybe that's somewhat along Karen's lines of thinking, although she may not see it that way.
Friend Albion,

A few of our regular members do not carry an Anglican Icon. For example: jtbdad carries the Generic Christian Icon, and Aymn has a Non-Denominational Icon. The informal standard we have been using until now is merely self identification as an Anglican.

Fish and Bread

12th July 2007, 11:27 PM

I don't know how to draw that line since many of those who hold the extreme ideas that you mention will say that they accept whatever creed is thrown up before them, albeit with their own interpretation of every word in it.

That is closely related to one of the points I've been trying to make. If the forum adopts affirmation of a creed as the criteria for entry, knowing that in fact most of the groups they'd be targeting for exclusion find a way to affirm the creed through "creative reinterpretation", they are simply rooting out the people who are honest. If someone like me who basically is not that far out there says "I'm not sure about the creed" when questioned, I'm gone. Meanwhile, the Muslim/Hindu/Gaiaite/Anglican fusion man or woman who believes the world is really a green ball of cheese in disguise but creatively reinterprets the creed so he or she can affirm it is in.

You know, maybe we should stop trying to find ways to exclude people and start trying to find ways to include them. We're not God deciding who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, we're not a bishop deciding who to ordain to the priesthood, and we're not a priest deciding who to admit to communion. We're just lay people searching for the face of God together and chatting about scripture, tradition, reason, and occasionally light-hearted stuff as well. It's not that big of a deal in a lot of ways -- it only becomes a big deal when we use it as an excuse not to love our neighbor. And who is our neighbor? Everyone is. At least, that's what Jesus taught.

Aymn27

13th July 2007, 02:28 AM

Friend Albion,

A few of our regular members do not carry an Anglican Icon. For example: jtbdad carries the Generic Christian Icon, and Aymn has a Non-Denominational Icon. The informal standard we have been using until now is merely self identification as an Anglican.
Friend longhair, I was told that when I first joined CF that an icon was not the only indicator of denomination - that I did not have to have an Anglican denom icon to say I was Anglican...so for any doubters I came up with my subtitle "An Anglican in the Vineyard". Besides that over 90% of my posts are here in STR....

karen freeinchristman

13th July 2007, 03:54 AM

We're not God deciding who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, we're not a bishop deciding who to ordain to the priesthood, and we're not a priest deciding who to admit to communion. We're just lay people searching for the face of God together and chatting about scripture, tradition, reason, and occasionally light-hearted stuff as well. It's not that big of a deal in a lot of ways -- it only becomes a big deal when we use it as an excuse not to love our neighbor. And who is our neighbor? Everyone is. At least, that's what Jesus taught.This is such a fantastic paragraph, I think it should be used in our Wiki!

longhair75

13th July 2007, 08:02 AM

Friend longhair, I was told that when I first joined CF that an icon was not the only indicator of denomination - that I did not have to have an Anglican denom icon to say I was Anglican...so for any doubters I came up with my subtitle "An Anglican in the Vineyard". Besides that over 90% of my posts are here in STR....
Friend Aymn,

That is precisely my point. The Anglican Icon, at this point, is not a prerequisite for membership in STR. Self identification as an Anglican is sufficient.

Albion

13th July 2007, 09:18 AM

That is closely related to one of the points I've been trying to make. If the forum adopts affirmation of a creed as the criteria for entry, knowing that in fact most of the groups they'd be targeting for exclusion find a way to affirm the creed through "creative reinterpretation", they are simply rooting out the people who are honest. If someone like me who basically is not that far out there says "I'm not sure about the creed" when questioned, I'm gone. Meanwhile, the Muslim/Hindu/Gaiaite/Anglican fusion man or woman who believes the world is really a green ball of cheese in disguise but creatively reinterprets the creed so he or she can affirm it is in.

Sure. That makes a lot of sense to me. This is why I think that, everything else aside, the person should at least identify himself as an Anglican, since it is more likely that a creative reinterpreter will not lie outright about this, whereas he thinking he is not dishonest when he says he accepts the Creed, for instance, but has his own way or reading it. Of course, I would make provision in the wording somehow for such as the forum member who considers himself Anglican but for one reason or another is currently attending another church. He, at least, stated his identity next to his name as "An Anglican in the Vineyard...."

That's from another thread, I think.

What I don't want is something that veers to the opposite end of things, saying that anyone who affirms the Creed is part of us, since that invites Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and members of other religions who have no commitment to our church at all.

[/quote] maybe we should stop trying to find ways to exclude people and start trying to find ways to include them....We're just lay people searching for the face of God together and chatting about scripture, tradition, reason, and occasionally light-hearted stuff as well. It's not that big of a deal in a lot of ways -- it only becomes a big deal when we use it as an excuse not to love our neighbor. And who is our neighbor? Everyone is. At least, that's what Jesus taught.[/quote]

Well, I agree in principle, but it's not a matter of whom we love or even of excluding anyone. We do want and should have a forum where people who share a certain religious affinity for each other can gather. The others are not excluded from dozens of other forums, where they can interact with us and anyone else. In fact, everyone who is in the gray area as to being here on the Anglican/OC forum already has a home in some other CF section as well.

longhair75

13th July 2007, 11:53 AM

Once adopted provisionally, the Wiki can be edited and modified by the membership. We will need to come up with a procedure that will decide how this will be done in the future. This is another question.

This motion is to ratify the Wiki rules provisionally as they are now to allow us a starting point. There will be a poll Sunday to call for the vote.