WIKI: Apostolic Churches = MALE bishops succession?

[a_ntv]

I suggest to limitate the definition of Apostolic Churches (for this forum use) to MALE bishop succession.

I strongly believe that the apostolic succession is possible ONLY through MALE bishops

I suggest to edit out from the list of Churches/Denominations (in the wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t5696227-wiki-apostolic-churches.html)) all the denominations that have women bishops.

I've not modified the wiki in this way because I think that debate is necessary

[HyacinthBouquet]

Your proposal would alienate most of the Anglicans in STR, most of them being from America. Is that what you are suggesting? You just want the British Anglicans? Do you think that would be fair?

[Letalis]

I suggest to limitate the definition of Apostolic Churches (for this forum use) to MALE bishop succession.

I strongly believe that the apostolic succession is possible ONLY through MALE bishops

I suggest to edit out from the list of Churches/Denominations (in the wiki (http://www.christianforums.com/t5696227-wiki-apostolic-churches.html)) all the denominations that have women bishops.

I've not modified the wiki in this way because I think that debate is necessary
This forum is for those that claim apostolic succession.

We're not going to, as a matter of policy, make a judgement about whether or not that claim is true.

[Lel]

Unless the people want only churches w/ male bishops to be included, that is. If it's what the people want...

[zhilan]

I agree that we shouldn't start playing the "whose succession is real" game. This forum includes Anglicans.

[Albion]

Your proposal would alienate most of the Anglicans in STR, most of them being from America. Is that what you are suggesting? You just want the British Anglicans? Do you think that would be fair?

Well, it hardly would eliminate all the Anglicans on STR, or all from America, in as much as the Continuing Anglicans in America do not have women bishops. You would lose some American Anglicans, the Episcopalians, it's true, but if you aren't satisfied that 'Apostolic' means the historic episcopate, there isn't any point in having this forum with that as its distinguishing characteristic.

[Albion]

I agree that we shouldn't start playing the "whose succession is real" game. This forum includes Anglicans.

If you aren't prepared to stand behind some standard, get ready for Methodists who claim that their bishops have Apostolic Succession and just don't make anything special out of it, plus any New Agey Theosophical church that bothered to hunt up a wandering bishop to authorize their church, and more in that vein. I'd bet that most here would think that this was not what they had in mind if that happens. 'Apostolic' is a concept that animates and justifies this forum, isn't it, not a minimum entry qualification for an otherwise open-ended membership.

But I mainly wanted to comment on the 'forum includes Anglicans' idea. Only a few of the Anglican provinces worldwide have women bishops. Only a tiny percentage of Anglicans have a woman as their own bishop. Only a couple of percentage points' worth.

In principle then, there's nothing anti-Anglican about expecting male bishops, and perhaps it's just the opposite.

You all decide. Those are just some bits of information and a few thoughts to go along with them.

[Fish and Bread]

I am against this proposal. It seems like an arbitrary dividing line with the intent of eliminating a very specific group of people deemed "undesirable".

Now, I know what some folks are probably thinking: "But female bishops aren't real bishops.". It's true that's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. However, she also teaches as of the late 19th century (And probably still today based on dominus isesus and another more recent curial document) that male Anglican bishops aren't real bishops, lacking valid form and intent.

So, one could eliminate Anglicans all together. But wait -- the Eastern Orthodox don't think Roman Catholic bishops are real bishops in the sense of being able to confect valid sacraments. So I guess we have to throw them out, too. And, suddenly, we all just have our separate forums and then *poof* there goes the Apostolic sub-forum.

Or we could just continue the current policy of accepting those churches and denominations that trace succession through the laying on of hands in a line of bishops back to the Apostles. That, by the way, would not include the Methodists, because John Wesley (Who was ordained an Anglican priest) ordained his own ministers and thus broke any claim to episcopal (of bishops) succession.

[WarriorAngel]

Unless the people want only churches w/ male bishops to be included, that is. If it's what the people want...

There have been voiced concerns.

Well, it hardly would eliminate all the Anglicans on STR, or all from America, in as much as the Continuing Anglicans in America do not have women bishops. You would lose some American Anglicans, the Episcopalians, it's true, but if you aren't satisfied that 'Apostolic' means the historic episcopate, there isn't any point in having this forum with that as its distinguishing characteristic.

:) That concern is valid.



If you aren't prepared to stand behind some standard, get ready for Methodists who claim that their bishops have Apostolic Succession and just don't make anything special out of it, plus any New Agey Theosophical church that bothered to hunt up a wandering bishop to authorize their church, and more in that vein. I'd bet that most here would think that this was not what they had in mind if that happens. 'Apostolic' is a concept that animates and justifies this forum, isn't it, not a minimum entry qualification for an otherwise open-ended membership.

But I mainly wanted to comment on the 'forum includes Anglicans' idea. Only a few of the Anglican provinces worldwide have women bishops. Only a tiny percentage of Anglicans have a woman as their own bishop. Only a couple of percentage points' worth.

In principle then, there's nothing anti-Anglican about expecting male bishops, and perhaps it's just the opposite.

You all decide. Those are just some bits of information and a few thoughts to go along with them.

:) This is why I suggested these topics remain outside this forum, because there are not any ancient teachings in Tradition that includes this.

[EmperorConstantine]

a_ntv, while I do agree that only males should be clergy (theological reasons) at the same time this would cause some uproar from the direction of Anglican folks.

[a_ntv]

This forum is for those that claim apostolic succession.

We're not going to, as a matter of policy, make a judgement about whether or not that claim is true.

I'm proponing simply to change the definition of apostolic succession in this forum from "succession of bishops" to "sucession of male bishops".

It is not a judjment about whether or not the apostolic succession is true:
it is simply to have a definition of apostolic succession more near to the tradition.

Anglican are very divided about this issue: I have no problem to include here all Anglicans that are against the possibility of women bishop

[kiwimac]

Here in NZ we have both ordained female priests and consecrated female bishops. In point of fact both the Anglican church and the Old Catholics have female priests and bishops.

Because YOUR church does not accept them as valid does not mean you get to decide that our priests and bishops are not 'real' simply because of their gender.

Apostolic succession exists where there are female deacons, priests and bishops.

[Albion]

Fish, you make very good points and as I suggested in an earlier post, whatever is decided is for those who feel the most keenly about the forum they set up. I just added some more information.

So here are a few more to consider...

However, she also teaches as of the late 19th century (And probably still today based on dominus isesus and another more recent curial document) that male Anglican bishops aren't real bishops, lacking valid form and intent.

If that were the only line we Anglicans were dealing with these days, this would be a serious consideration. Most or all Anglican bishops have PNCC or OC or EO bishops in their lineage these days, precisely because of wanting to make null and void that RC evalutation, even while not recognizing it as a reasonable one in the first place. Of course, then you'd have to get into the verification business, which no one would want.


Or we could just continue the current policy of accepting those churches and denominations that trace succession through the laying on of hands in a line of bishops back to the Apostles. That, by the way, would not include the Methodists, because John Wesley (Who was ordained an Anglican priest) ordained his own ministers and thus broke any claim to episcopal (of bishops) succession.

Incorrect. It is maintained by Methodists that Wesley was secretly consecrated by an Anglican bishop and that the veracity of that consecration is now open and proven. Once again, who's to say? Is an allegation sufficient for membership? It seems that "yes" is this answer most likely to win approval, and if so, then that's the choice of the forum.

Of course you didn't touch my mention of one man episcopates created by Protestants wanting to add a little luster or presige to their ministries, but that's an area hard to evaluate.

[karen freeinchristman]

I am against the proposal. Fish and Bread said it for me:

I am against this proposal. It seems like an arbitrary dividing line with the intent of eliminating a very specific group of people deemed "undesirable".

Now, I know what some folks are probably thinking: "But female bishops aren't real bishops.". It's true that's what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. However, she also teaches as of the late 19th century (And probably still today based on dominus isesus and another more recent curial document) that male Anglican bishops aren't real bishops, lacking valid form and intent.

So, one could eliminate Anglicans all together. But wait -- the Eastern Orthodox don't think Roman Catholic bishops are real bishops in the sense of being able to confect valid sacraments. So I guess we have to throw them out, too. And, suddenly, we all just have our separate forums and then *poof* there goes the Apostolic sub-forum.

Or we could just continue the current policy of accepting those churches and denominations that trace succession through the laying on of hands in a line of bishops back to the Apostles. That, by the way, would not include the Methodists, because John Wesley (Who was ordained an Anglican priest) ordained his own ministers and thus broke any claim to episcopal (of bishops) succession.

[Albion]

Maybe all churches which claim bishops in Apostolic Succession. Period.

?

[WarriorAngel]

Here in NZ we have both ordained female priests and consecrated female bishops. In point of fact both the Anglican church and the Old Catholics have female priests and bishops.

Because YOUR church does not accept them as valid does not mean you get to decide that our priests and bishops are not 'real' simply because of their gender.

Apostolic succession exists where there are female deacons, priests and bishops.

This is not Traditional.
The forum is for Tradition.


Maybe all churches which claim bishops in Apostolic Succession. Period.

?

That is too broad ...
This is a place for TRADITIONAL Apostolic Succession.
Meaning we should have participation based on the Churchs Traditional standings.
Traditional meaning following the same concepts as the Apostles who were all male, and as Paul told Timothy, choose 'men' who would be called by God.

IF any woman were to have been choosen, it would have been Mary His Mother.

But I leave it at that.

[Albion]

This is not Traditional.
The forum is for Tradition.




That is too broad ...
This is a place for TRADITIONAL Apostolic Succession.
Meaning we should have participation based on the Churchs Traditional standings.
Traditional meaning following the same concepts as the Apostles who were all male, and as Paul told Timothy, choose 'men' who would be called by God.

IF any woman were to have been choosen, it would have been Mary His Mother.

But I leave it at that.

I understand and sympathize with your position there, Warrior. My "broad" suggestion was nothing more than a condensation of what all those who are on the other side of the fence have been dancing around.

I just thought that those who are angling in that direction ought to look at their proposal and see if it fits after all.

[Colabomb]

I am yet again insulted. I wanted to come over here and fellowship with my roman Catholic and Orthodox Friends and Brothers without having to walk on eggshells about my beliefs.

I am disgusted. There has been no arguement about female ordination on this board. No anglican has come over here with the intention of raising trouble or even discussing the trouble.

If this is supported, you will have to remove my moderatorship as I would no longer be part of the board, being an episcopalian.

[Fish and Bread]

Fish, you make very good points

Thanks.

If that were the only line we Anglicans were dealing with these days, this would be a serious consideration. Most or all Anglican bishops have PNCC or OC or EO bishops in their lineage these days, precisely because of wanting to make null and void that RC evalutation, even while not recognizing it as a reasonable one in the first place. Of course, then you'd have to get into the verification business, which no one would want.

Recent curia documents still seem to treat Anglicans as members of ecclesiastical communities rather than churches. So, I'd imagine there is probably some issue even about these new lineages, perhaps the rites used or the intent in subsequent generations (i.e. though the initial bishops seeking this reconsecration probably believed in a sacrificial priesthood, down the line of consecrations and ordinations many would not thus potentially breaking lineage) as Roman Catholics believe there must be valid form, matter, and intent as they define those terms.

Incorrect. It is maintained by Methodists that Wesley was secretly consecrated by an Anglican bishop and that the veracity of that consecration is now open and proven.

I've never heard this before. I'm a little suspicious that Methodists seem to only begin to be claiming this hundreds of years later. But I suppose it's possible it did happen. I don't have any real strong objection to having Methodists here if they truly want to participate.

This is not Traditional.
The forum is for Tradition.

That is too broad ...
This is a place for TRADITIONAL Apostolic Succession.
Meaning we should have participation based on the Churchs Traditional standings.
Traditional meaning following the same concepts as the Apostles who were all male, and as Paul told Timothy, choose 'men' who would be called by God.

Some who are Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans might argue that concepts like Marian apparitions are not traditional. Alternately, Roman Catholics might argue that St. Gregory Palamas' concept of uncreated versus created energies is not traditional, even though it is widely believed by the Eastern Orthodox. I don't know if we want to get into all of those distinctions as barriers for membership. Part of the purpose for the forum is to discuss and learn from our differences, right?

[Albion]

Thanks.



Recent curia documents still seem to treat Anglicans as members of ecclesiastical communities rather than churches. So, I'd imagine there is probably some issue even about these new lineages, perhaps the rites used or the intent in subsequent generations (i.e. though the initial bishops seeking this reconsecration probably believed in a sacrificial priesthood, down the line of consecrations and ordinations many would not thus potentially breaking lineage) as Roman Catholics believe there must be valid form, matter, and intent as they define those terms.

Well, you're absolutely correct about that. While what I said is true as a matter of history, it doesn't mean that the RCC has or will recognize that the circumstances in Pope Leo's time have changed. Put another way, you are right that they aren't going to, which means that any Roman Catholic could point to this as his reason for opposing all Anglicans.

I've never heard this before. I'm a little suspicious that Methodists seem to only begin to be claiming this hundreds of years later. But I suppose it's possible it did happen. I don't have any real strong objection to having Methodists here if they truly want to participate.

At first it sounded implausible to me also, but it's not as wild as it sounds or as lacking in evidence. HOWEVER, this is the reason why I suggested a compromise--that those who want a relatively broad statement concerning membership might consider all those whose CHURCHES, not themselves, make a claim to having Apostolic Succession. This seemed to be greeted cooly. I don't think that any Methodist church bodies, believing as they do that bishops are just presbyters with a special administrative job, have asserted that they operate according to Apostolic Succession.

Some who are Eastern Orthodox or Anglicans might argue that concepts like Marian apparitions are not traditional. Alternately, Roman Catholics might argue that St. Gregory Palamas' concept of uncreated versus created energies is not traditional, even though it is widely believed by the Eastern Orthodox. I don't know if we want to get into all of those distinctions as barriers for membership. Part of the purpose for the forum is to discuss and learn from our differences, right?

My impression was that 'Apostolic' was being seen to mean having Apostolic Succession, not that everyone was expected to agree on other doctrines.

[a_ntv]

Because YOUR church does not accept them as valid does not mean you get to decide that our priests and bishops are not 'real' simply because of their gender.

My proposal in the OP is not based on what the Catholic Church believes: you know perfectly that for the CC is not enough to be male to have an apostolic succession

My OP proposal is simply to limit the definition of Apostolic Churches/Denomination to the old tradition, before the innovations of the XX century.

It is simply a will to be more near the ancient tradition: otherway I dont see the use of this congregational forum:

[Colabomb]

To communicate with people who are similar yet disagree.

If the forum was only filled with Conservative Catholics, what fun would that be?

"The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth"

"Yup!"

"Absolutely"

"No questions"

"Those stupid Protestants"

etc.

Why have a forum where there is no room for disagreemtn?

[a_ntv]

To communicate with people who are similar yet disagree.

If the forum was only filled with Conservative Catholics, what fun would that be?


There is Theology for having fun in the disagreements: this is a congregational forum, which aim is fellowship, not debate.

[Colabomb]

What topics do you plan to discuss, where it is so important to have us removed from the forum?

[EmperorConstantine]

If the Apostolic Succession bit was defined as male only, than surely most, if not all, the Anglicans would leave.

That would leave this as a "Orthodox and Roman Catholics only" board.

Though I don't agree with ordination of female priests or bishops, I like to keep this area open to Apostolic folks.

[kiwimac]

Certainly all the Old Catholics would leave.

[eoe]

Are we going to vote about this? Do we not make the rules?

I would be in favor of the rule change. Female bishops and Muslim priests are far from apostolic.

[Colabomb]

Are we going to vote about this? Do we not make the rules?

I would be in favor of the rule change. Female bishops and Muslim priests are far from apostolic.

If you had bothered to pay attention to the discussion we had on Ms. Redding (I refuse to call her reverend) you would see that most of us were disgusted at her comments, and were infact cheering when she was censured.

[kiwimac]

Say goodbye to the Anglicans and the OC's then.

[Colabomb]

When this board was made it was specifically requested that Anglicans be part of it, and it was requested by a woman who knows that we ordain women.

Yes we have differences. But before you start throwing us out for being "untraditional" realize that there are thousands of Traditional issues to cut people out on.

THe Catholics and the Orthodox may agree on Women's Ordination, but they disagree on other things. Why throw us out but not each other.

I say again.

Eoe, do you want to throw out the Catholics for their "untraditional" view of the Bishop of Rome?

Why is our "difference" worse than theirs?

[Albion]

Say goodbye to the Anglicans and the OC's then.

Well, of course that isn't true.

But the question really is this:
"Why are you having this forum under that title in the first place?" I mean, if you want to have a grouping of all Christians idenfied with churches that have bishops...SAY THAT!

The minute you say that the forum is for "Apostolic" churches, you are saying something different.

You can't have your cake and eat it too with this, so it's just a matter of everyone making up their minds as to what is wanted out of this forum!

[Colabomb]

I thought the binding of the board was the Episcopacy anyway.

[Albion]

When this board was made it was specifically requested that Anglicans be part of it, and it was requested by a woman who knows that we ordain women.

We ARE Anglicans, Cola, and we are here, and we don't have women bishops.

OK. That is the fact.

I suggested that all who belong to churches that claim Apostolic Succession might be the way to go, but that fell on deaf ears.

So I'm not about to sympathize with tailoring things just so non-Apostolic Anglicans can feel Apostolic after there was no support for that idea which would have allowed them in. Please let's not hear that "NO ANGLICANS! WHY DO YOU WANT TO THROW OFF THE ANGLICANS?" stuff anymore. It's bogus.

There will be Anglicans here whichever way this goes, and Old Catholics too, just not all of them.

[Colabomb]

We ARE Anglicans, Cola, and we are here, and we don't have women bishops.

OK. That is the fact.

I suggested that all who belong to churches that claim Apostolic Succession might be the way to go, but that fell on deaf ears.

So I'm not about to sympathize with tailoring things just so non-Apostolic Anglicans can feel Apostolic after there was no support for that idea which would have allowed them in. Please let's not hear that "NO ANGLICANS! WHY DO YOU WANT TO THROW OFF THE ANGLICANS?" stuff anymore. It's bogus.

There will be Anglicans here whichever way this goes, and Old Catholics too, just not all of them.

And you are telling me that the papacy IS apostolic?

[Simon_Templar]

And you are telling me that the papacy IS apostolic?
I don't think you'll find many in the Orthodox, or Anglican churches who believe that the papacy is Not Apostolic. We disagree about the supremacy of the Roman See, not wether or not its apostolic.


On a more general note. I don't agree with the ordination of women. However, I don't think the orders of an entire church can be invalidated because some portions of that church ordain women.

So unless you guys are planning on having EVERY member post the succession of their individual bishop to prove that they have succession. I think this is an entirely moot point.

[Albion]

And you are telling me that the papacy IS apostolic?

If by "Apostolic" we mean "having bishops in Apostolic Succession, " then, yes, of course. Is there another way of looking at it?

[Colabomb]

The doctrines of the Papacy. In the Early Church he was a symbolic Figurehead. Remember that Peter was corrected by the councils.

He has been turned into the Vicar of Christ on Earth, The Earthly Head of the Church and infallible on matters of faith and doctrine.

That is unapostolic. But I don't see many calling for the ax for the Catholics.

[Simon_Templar]

The doctrines of the Papacy. In the Early Church he was a symbolic Figurehead. Remember that Peter was corrected by the councils.

He has been turned into the Vicar of Christ on Earth, The Earthly Head of the Church and infallible on matters of faith and doctrine.

That is unapostolic. But I don't see many calling for the ax for the Catholics.
The doctrine of papal infallability doesn't mean that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. Even when he comments on faith and morals etc.

Only Ex Cathedera statements are held to be infallible. As I understand it, that means only when the Pope deliberately states that something is the official dogma of the Church.

thus if the pope were to say.. I don't think that jews should eat with gentiles... its not an infallible statement because he's just voicing his opinion.

In such an isntance, the pope could be, and has been wrong. I'm pretty sure most Catholics would agree with that (correct me if I'm wrong).

The Orthodox agree in principle to the infallability of the church. They, and we, would disagree that the Pope is the supreme and deciding voice of the Church.

[Albion]

The doctrines of the Papacy. In the Early Church he was a symbolic Figurehead. Remember that Peter was corrected by the councils.

He has been turned into the Vicar of Christ on Earth, The Earthly Head of the Church and infallible on matters of faith and doctrine.

That is unapostolic. But I don't see many calling for the ax for the Catholics.

Well, it's all irrelevant. We are talking about Apostolic Churches with reference to valid bishops.

I don't support the idea of Papal Supremacy but we aren't talking about that. The Pope is the bishop of Rome, you know, even if some of the doctrines that have been added to that by his church are in error.

[Simon_Templar]

However, back on the issue at hand, I think its a bad idea to try and define membership in the forum by male succession because getting that specific is just going to create too many problems.

[WarriorAngel]

Let's try to discuss the Papacy in a thread....
Another thread.

If you question it, then discuss it. I am not against doing such a thing.

In fact, prior to breaking off the CC, the Pope was still the Patriarch of the Anglicans.

Pope is not an exclusive term to Rome either.
Pope Shenouda lll is also a Patriarch.

[Colabomb]

Let's try to discuss the Papacy in a thread....
Another thread.

If you question it, then discuss it. I am not against doing such a thing.

In fact, prior to breaking off the CC, the Pope was still the Patriarch of the Anglicans.

Pope is not an exclusive term to Rome either.
Pope Shenouda lll is also a Patriarch.

It is not my goal to debate the papacy sister, only to illustrate a point.

The eastern Orthodox consider your position on the pope to be against the Tradition of the Church, however they are not calling for you to be removed from the forum, just us.

Why is one doctrine they disagree with worse than another?

[Simon_Templar]

So what is the status of this idea, just for clarification. (and hopefully to put an end to this debate).

Is this idea still under consideration as a possible rule?

or

Has this idea been removed from contention as a possible forum rule?

[WarriorAngel]

It is not my goal to debate the papacy sister, only to illustrate a point.

The eastern Orthodox consider your position on the pope to be against the Tradition of the Church, however they are not calling for you to be removed from the forum, just us.

Why is one doctrine they disagree with worse than another?

First of all 'US' is a matter of perception.
You yourself said it was non issue and would not present the argument here....


You are also trying to bring equality of debate to a proposed idea that is not traditional to an idea that is Traditional.
THE EO understand the Pope is a Patriarch...

And the Patriarch's are who form councils...
They see his role as first amongst equals...whereas they also see their own Patriarchs as leaders...so I do not think they think he less a leader as it seems you are proposing.

You are trying to debate if one Tradition has to agree vs a new tradition that no other Church would ever agree.

See how you cannot equate the two.

The debate would be...how and why is the seat of Peter the first among equals in their eyes and how does it fit Tradition....?

Vs throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You are not giving an example of equal standing and you just do not see it that way.

This propsal that I asked everyone to share their views on for rules has absolutely nothing to do with 'you not being invited'...
Are you defined by the few non traditional debates?

I thought the fact your church is a Bishphoric was the reason you are attending.

And hoping to dialog and talk...

Why this is all you can think about...I dont know.

But if you want to talk about it, then go for it...:wave:
I am fully prepared to discuss it.

Just was hoping it would not alienate other Anglicans that do not wish to talk about it.

[eoe]

Eoe, do you want to throw out the Catholics for their "untraditional" view of the Bishop of Rome?

Why is our "difference" worse than theirs?Because your difference is specific to this forum.



again - are we going to vote? We can go around in circles for a long long time here and get nothing done.

[Colabomb]

First of all 'US' is a matter of perception.
You yourself said it was non issue and would not present the argument here....


You are also trying to bring equality of debate to a proposed idea that is not traditional to an idea that is Traditional.
THE EO understand the Pope is a Patriarch...

And the Patriarch's are who form councils...
They see his role as first amongst equals...whereas they also see their own Patriarchs as leaders...so I do not think they think he less a leader as it seems you are proposing.

You are trying to debate if one Tradition has to agree vs a new tradition that no other Church would ever agree.

See how you cannot equate the two.

The debate would be...how and why is the seat of Peter the first among equals in their eyes and how does it fit Tradition....?

Vs throwing the baby out with the bath water.

You are not giving an example of equal standing and you just do not see it that way.

This propsal that I asked everyone to share their views on for rules has absolutely nothing to do with 'you not being invited'...
Are you defined by the few non traditional debates?

I thought the fact your church is a Bishphoric was the reason you are attending.

And hoping to dialog and talk...

Why this is all you can think about...I dont know.

But if you want to talk about it, then go for it...:wave:
I am fully prepared to discuss it.

Just was hoping it would not alienate other Anglicans that do not wish to talk about it.



As I pointed out earlier sister, it is not all I am capable of talking about. I have posted on many other threads, including a couple of yours.

But its kinda hard to fellowship when you are reading a thread that calls for your removal from the board.