Some of the recent posts I've read make me ask some specifics: Are gay people welcome to discuss the mainstream Anglican national churches' struggles with these issues? Or does the traditional and orthodox measure mean that gay=bad and the editorial policy would hold to that view? I've been made uncomfortable with what reads as condemnation within some post topics. Realizing that orthodoxy was defined for us as not particularly involving sexuality, but as contained with the Creeds within the Church of England in Canada, which became the Anglican Church of Canada (ACC). Realizing also that the church has grown over time to be more inclusive, and to draw the circle wide, and then wider still (the theme of the 2007 general synod of the ACC)* Second, is the traditional view about women not being ordainable held editorially here? Third, although the 39 Articles form the basis of the historical Anglican church, the only doctrinal documents we agree on within the worldwide Anglican Communion are the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. The 40-some member churches of the Anglican Communion differ in regard to the invocation and importance of the 39 Articles. Is this forum defining itself in some way as more adherent to the Articles than many of the member churches? Such as the Anglican Church of Canada? What is normative in one place is not necessarily elsewhere. What is traditional and orthodox here? I would hold that the liturgy and the creeds define us as Anglicans, but I better hear if specific views are the Accepted Way sooner rather than later within this forum, so I can decide to continue or not. *"Draw the circle wide, draw the circle wide. No one stands alone, we’ll stand side by side. Draw the circle wide; draw it wider still. Let this be our song! No one stands alone. Standing side by side, draw the circle, draw the circle wide!”
Post moved to its own thread as having little to do with the TOS. Absolutely. Within the bounds of orthodoxy ministering to gay people is not only an Anglican but a Christian thing to do. Unless someone has tried to claim otherwise, only the moderators of this site have an editorial policy, such as there is; we have little day to day involvement and our editorial policy is that we have none, as long as your posts are within the generic bounds of discussion outlined in the rules. Anyone else who claims to have editorial ownership here is simply misinformed. See the above on editorial ownership. You had already asked a similar question here, and the answer remains the same. Feel free to ask for clarifying questions if the answer did not get at what you were looking for.