Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)

Article name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Move Episcopal Church in the United States of America → The Episcopal Church

According to the article, the correct names for the church are "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and "The Episcopal Church". The common name is "Episcopal Church", but that is used for a disambiguation for all the dozens of Episcopal Churches. It is fine to remove "Protestant", but if you do that you also have to remove "in the United States of America", and in both cases (leaving in or taking out Protestant) you have to leave in the article "The" as it is part of the official name. I see no problem with the disambiguation page being "Episcopal Church" and this article being named "The Episcopal Church". That sort of delineation is far different than simple capitalization differences, which are not recommended. "The Episcopal Church" currently redirects to this article. Oakwillow (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose — there are tons of other Episcopal Churches, see Episcopal Church for the list. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  Read the article. Almost all of them are within The Episcopal Church. Oakwillow (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Like Twas Now, I think the article properly belongs where it is. Despite all the "Episcopal Church" stuff throughout the article, the church is properly the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, or ECUSA. I don't think it needs to be moved. Esrever ^(klaT) 02:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Weak oppose 1. I dislike the inconsistency of using 'the' in an article title, even when the organization prefers it in its own identity. 2. See Talk:Episcopal_Church#Proposed move --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Episcopal Church is far too ambiguous, and as Esrever indicates, ECUSA is a common name. No move required. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Too ambiguous. Is Episcopal Church (United States) better? --supernorton 10:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article title needs to have "USA" in one form or another, otherwise it's hopelessly ambiguous. Tevildo (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - current title is common and clear; proposed title is common but ambiguous; thus, no need to move. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New article name discussion

I see I arrived too late for the poll, but I like supernorton's suggestion of Episcopal Church (United States). It disambiguates which Episcopal Church is meant while also avoiding a name that is unwieldy, hard to remember (I always have to double-check whether it's "in" or "of" the United States), and frankly, not commonly used. Are there any objections to Episcopal Church (United States)? —Angr 08:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this. Tb (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There having been no objections in more than 6 days, I've gone ahead and moved it. —Angr 00:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do object. It is not a name used by the ECUSA. clariosophic (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You perhaps misunderstand the parens. They are not part of the name; they are a disambiguator. See WP:NCDAB. Just as we have A Clockwork Orange (film) even though the word "film" is not a part of the title. What is certainly clear is that ECUSA is not a name used by any body. So "Episcopal Church" is, in fact, the name used by the church itself, and the bit in parens disambiguates it in case people think it might be confusing in an international context. Tb (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing Anglican movement in see also

An editor added a link to Continuing Anglican movement in the See Also section. I removed it. I think that it does not belong here, because, by definition, it is about groups which are not part of the Episcopal Church. We do not have such a link on Church of England pointing at Presbyterianism; we don't have such a link to Presbyterian Church in America on Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); etc. The link to Anglican realignment barely qualifies, but it at least involves parts of the Episcopal Church. The same cannot be said for Continuing Anglican movement. Tb (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Presbyterians don't claim to be the authentic, historical Church of England. Continuing Anglicans claim to be the authentic, historical Episcopal Church, at least in America. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing of that claim on the relevant article, nor is it anything but a fringe claim. Surely about such a question the unanimous opinion of the rest of the Anglican Communion should matter. Tb (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, it shouldn't have to be listed in the "See also" section because it should already be linked to in the text of the article. Can we work in a reference to the Continuing Anglican movement somewhere in the "Secessions" section? —Angr 16:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see that done. I realize it is a sensitive issue but I don't think it is a "fringe" claim. There are around 667 parishes that currently identify themselves as "Continuing Anglican", and probably many more that haven't been counted. I am sure the Anglican Communion would not recognize them as representing modern Anglicanism, but I don't think they want to be thought of that way. They claim they are continuing the traditions or beliefs that the Episcopal church abandoned over the years like the 1928 prayer book. And the continuing churches are anti-abortion, against the adoption of liberation theology, and believe in an all male clergy, all of which the Episcopal church held at one time. So it may be a small group of people doing this, but it is not fringe for them to state a fact. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Presbyterians do claim to be continuing the "traditions or beliefs that the Anglican church abandoned", by the way. What is a fringe claim is the claim you alluded to that continuing Anglicans claim to be "the authentic, historical, Episcopal Church". That is a fringe claim. I agree that naturally discussing them in the article is a good idea. Tb (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be correct in that modern Presbyterians came out of the Scottish Reformation but that movement adopted the thinking of the Continental Reformation more than anything. The difference I see is that the Continuing Churches are not, doctrinally, looking outside of the Anglican tradition at this point, they are simply clinging to the Church that existed before recent theological and social developments within the Church.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

But this is exactly what the English Presbyterians claimed--not that they are "looking outside" the Church of England, but reforming within it, doing what the Church of England started but never finished, etc., etc. Regardless, the point is now moot. Tb (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

CS Lewis in this article

I object to the inclusion of the CS Lewis bit on the section on women's ordination. First off, this is an article about the Episcopal Church, not about the controversies in it, and certainly not about the history of the debate about women's ordination. It is sufficient to say that the question had long been considered--certainly well before CS Lewis. Moreover, by including Lewis, and nothing else, it makes it seem as if earlier consideration was always negative, which it most certainly was not. That is, in order to be NPOV, we would need a fair survey of earlier attitudes--going back how far, exactly?--and all of that is clearly not really on topic here. And, finally, Lewis was English, not American, and this is not an article about the Church of England, but specifically about the Episcopal Church. I would like to hear some defense of its inclusion. Tb (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually C.S. Lewis, a native of Belfast, was Irish, but I agree with you otherwise. clariosophic (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

There are several reasons why it should be included but first off I agree that there should be additional context. But context is the main reason for inclusion. The ordination of women was a huge change of course for the church, and in terms of the controversy section, the first of several major changes. But the problem is that it basically appears out of nowhere. The Episcopal Church took the lead in ordaining women, but the debate had been ongoing within the Anglican Communion for a long time as you rightly point out. I think it does a disservice to the reader to simply say, well on this date a woman was ordained, then people got mad and left, here is what they are called... So Lewis was included because 1) he was, and still is, one of the most widely read and studied Anglicans 2) he specifically weighed in on the issue in a unique way and 3) the dissenters largely hold his view on the issue and I think it is useful for people to understand the context of the debate -that it is not over whether women can or cannot actually do what a priest does, but the debate is over why they should, or why they should not be permitted to do so (at least for most considerate people). Sweetmoose6 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's somewhat too much emphasis since the topic of this article is the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Considering how long this article is, and how long Ordination of women is, I think it would be beneficial to start an article on the Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion (cf. the already existing Ordination of women in the Church of Scotland), leaving just brief summaries here and at Ordination of women, and that new article would be the ideal place to discuss C.S. Lewis's (and others') views. —Angr 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely that the previous text made it sound like it came out of nowhere. I agree we should at least say something like, "For many years the question of the ordination of women had been debated in the church." What I object to is the presentation of for/against arguments. In response to your particular points, 1) Lewis is popular, but not at all of great moment in serious theological study in Anglican churches, 2) there is nothing particularly unique about his contribution--many have said the same, and 3) the dissenters hold many different views and by no means only hold this one. Indeed, many of the dissenters hold exactly the view you say they do not--many say that a woman cannot be validly ordained a priest. And this is the problem: the section is not a section on the debate over women's ordination (perhaps we should put in a link to Ordination of Women#Anglicanism), it is a discussion of the history. And moreover, you have not addressed my central point: that the presentation of only one POV makes the article POV, and the expression of many here would be out of place. Better then is to present none, and perhaps add a link to the already excellent Ordination of Women page. Tb (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sweetmoose6, are you ok with Angr's proposed solution? We don't need to wait on Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion to implement it; we can just put in a link to Ordination of Women#Anglicanism and then start work on the larger article. Tb (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Angr's solution, that sounds good; I'd like anything that provides some additional historical context. To address your points briefly, I thought I did address your POV concern when I said, "I agree that there should be additional context." I meant more scholarship besides Lewis, I just don't really have time to do that right now. I also never claimed Lewis was a serious academic specifically related to Anglicanism; he was unquestionably a scholar in other areas, but it was precisely because he is so widely read and studied that he was included; 2) it was the position he wrote about that was unique, not necessarily the fact that he was the one to state it; his essay is just short, clear and to the point, and 3) you're absolutely right about dissenters taking various points of view, but when you say cannot we mean two different things. I used it to mean there are some who think women simply cannot perform the pastoral counseling, preaching etc. like or as well as men; Lewis denies this as do many in the Continuing community. Lewis actually thinks, as many do, they could do it better in some cases. Your use of cannot seems to mean that doctrinally or under canon law they cannot be priests, which is not what I meant, although some perhaps may think that also but I don't know where that is documented. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added something that I think well implements Angr's solution. I leave it to others to improve Ordination of women#Anglicanism or create Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion. Tb (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Length of article and recent controversions

This article is already too long and does not need further expansion of coverage of "recent controversies", now stretching back thirty-five years. (Is that "recent"?) Here's the deal: nothing belongs in the "History" section but a shorter version of what is in History of the Episcopal Church. If it doesn't fit in History of the Episcopal Church then it certainly doesn't fit in the history section here, which should be shorter than the "main article". I'm going to insist that there be no expansions here unless there are profound reasons--if anything, we need to work on trimming the history section. Tb (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

POV of history section

The current history section expresses (perhaps accidentally) the view that the history of the Episcopal Church from the mid-70s on consists purely of "recent controversies". The article should treat the mainstream positions and trends and changes of the Episcopal Church as its primary historical topic, and dissenting views as extras. It is POV to treat minority dissention as equally noteworthy with majority action, and it is especially POV to completely omit treatment of majority action from 1976 on except as the impetus to dissention. Sometime this week I plan to propose a fairly serious rewrite of the recent history section. Tb (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but the controversies have all been generated by "majority actions." If there are other non-controversial activities of importance those should obviously be included in the history section.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

New Controversy

I added the following section. It was removed by an editor for the stated reason that it was not considered noteworthy among the other depositions and the article was recent controversy heavy. Bishop Duncan was deposed for abandoning the church before the diocese actually left the Episcopal Church. I believe it is noteworthy because of the conflict over whether Duncan actually had abandoned the church under canon law, and whether, as has been stated elsewhere, the abandonment statute can be used to punish a Bishop's intentions.

On September 17-19 the Episcopal House of Bishops voted 88 to 35 to depose Bishop Robert Duncan, a conservative, who had served as Bishop for the diocese of Pittsburgh for 11 years. The stated reason was for "abandoning the communion of this church." Duncan had not left the Episcopal church at this time, but his diocese was planning to vote on realignment within the Anglican Communion to join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. The Bishop had, along with diocese, already taken steps to do so.

Colin Bazley of the APSC, former Bishop of Chile, called on Archbishop Rowan Williams to suspend the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion. Bishop Bazley called on Williams to institute a new North American province stating that he was shocked that the church defrocked "an orthodox Christian believer, who has taught the biblical Anglican faith throughout his ministry."

The TEC's Title IV Review committee stated that Bishop Duncan had violated Canon IV.9.1 and "abandoned the communion of the church by an open renuncation of the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this church." Presiding Bishop Schori stated the violation occured by adopting the position that the diocese could stay in the Episcopal Church or realign within the Anglican Communion. Two other Bishops Cox and Schofield were deposed earlier in the year and are now aligned with the APSC. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The point is that it is not as noteworthy as, say, the consecration of Samuel Seabury. This page is not for the latest news; this is an encyclopedia. Any "recent controversies" section is a bad thing; recent matters must be covered from a long-view perspective. So to keep this, please explain why Duncan's deposition is more noteworthy than the Bishop Pike affair or the deposition of Bishop Montgomery or the suspension of Bishop Onderdonk. And imagine if we had every controversy of that order listed here--what a disaster that would be! This is not the "everything about the Episcopal Church" page. Tb (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership numbers

Currently, the article states:

Total membership of active baptized members in 2007 is exactly 2,154,572, a 4.15% decline from 2006 according to the 2008 National Council of Churches Report. (This is the figure for all dioceses, the figure for the United States itself is 2,205,376) as counted by the Episcopal Church from all submitted parochial reports for {{As of|2005|alt=2005 – the latest year available}}.<ref name=RedBook2005>[http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2005_Red_Book_Table_of_Statistics_by_Prov_Diocese.pdf From 2005 Parochial Reports. Source: The General Convention Office as of January 2007] Retrieved October 25, 2007</ref>

1) Why do we write "exactly"? If it is 2,154,572, then that is what it is. No one will think it is 2,154,572.6, as the custom of counting slaves as 0.6 persons ended quite a while back and may not have prevailed in parochial reports then, anyway, but was primarily used for the US census.

("You needn't say 'exactually,'" the Queen remarked: "I can believe it without that." —Angr 10:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

2) Why is the figure for the U.S. larger than for the church as a whole? Does it have to do with the difference in years (2005 for parochial reports, 2007 for NCC)? Are Episcopalians outside the U.S. (Ecuador, Europe, Taiwan, etc) included in either set of figures?

--Bhuck (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Permit the ordaining"

An editor changed the language that "Most diocese ordain openly gay men and women" to read "Most dioceses permit the ordination of openly gay men and women." I reverted this, with the edit log saying that the diocese does the ordaining, not merely the permitting, in favor of simpler language. A new editor has reverted this back, saying first, "Rv to more neutral language NPOV", and then, " TB: what you did is called 'begging the question,' in other words you ignored all objections." Unfortunately, no objection has been raised. I invite anyone who believes the language "permit the ordination of" to be POV to explain why they believe it is not NPOV, or otherwise engage in good faith discussion of what these unstated objections are supposed to be. Tb (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can explain the POV thing, I prefer the original language, i.e., "Most dioceses ordain X." Esrever ^(klaT) 06:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the original wording is non-NPOV either, but I do see how it could be misleading. "Most dioceses ordain openly gay men and women" suggests that they actively do so on a regular basis, which might not be the case; "permit the ordination" merely means that in principle they don't object to doing so, but in practice perhaps they haven't had any openly gay ordinands yet. —Angr 10:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm pretty darn sure that this corner case is very small at this point. I believe the original text was in fact correct. Or rather, I believe that any source that supports the one, will support the other. Which raises the question of what the source is. Even though I think it's correct to say "most", in the absence of a clear source or some kind of count, we should say "a large number" or "quite a few", or some phrase that connotes > many, but not necessarily most. Tb (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing this would probably clear up the question pretty well. My gut feeling is that most dioceses actually do ordain openly gay clergy, but my gut feeling does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards. On the other hand, the initial edits also changed the statement that most dioceses ordained women to the priesthood and episcopate and not just the diaconate to say that they simply permitted such ordinations. In the case of the episcopate, I think it is still only some diocese which have actually performed such ordinations, while after the change of leadership in San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy, I believe that all dioceses now permit the ordination of women to the episcopate--but only a few have actually performed the ordinations.--Bhuck (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the following is relevant, as it is one of the Canons of the Episcopal Church: "All Bishops of Dioceses and other Clergy shall make provisions to identify fit persons for Holy Orders and encourage them to present themselves for Postulancy. No one shall be denied access to the selection process for ordination in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age, except as otherwise specified by these Canons." -- Title III, Canon 4, Section 1 of the Constitution and Canons for the Government of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.--Bhuck (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote from the Canons. Perhaps it should be stated that while such ordination is theoretically possible, it is not generally practiced. The same might also be said of "disabilities" and "age." Examining committees, of course, may give other reasons for rejecting an applicant, rather than the actual one. clariosophic (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think in all these categories it certainly is generally practiced. I can think immediately of recent ordinands in my diocese of diverse races, colors, ethnicities, sexes, origins, marital statuses, sexual orientations, disabilities, and ages. We certainly should not state that obedience to the canon is not "generally practiced" without clear evidence. There are, it is unquestioned, dioceses which refuse to ordain out gay people, and there used to be--but are no longer--dioceses which refused to ordain women. Aside from those clear examples, there are no other unusual cases to worry about. I think it's sufficient (we're talking of the lead section here) to say pretty much what we do now. Complicated discussions of ordination policy surely don't belong right up front. Tb (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

History section

The history section needs to be greatly shortened. It should be a summary of History of the Episcopal Church, but in fact it's longer than that article. The History section of this article is 48 kB long, while the entire History of the Episcopal Church article is only 44 kB long. —Angr 07:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Any facts cut here should be added to the sub article. -- Secisek (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, unless they're already there. I haven't done a detailed comparison, but I suspect a lot of info is duplicated and so could be removed from here since it's already there. —Angr 07:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think this is a good direction to go. The summary here should try to be fairly representative, not over-emphasizing any one particular epoch. That might mean that the nineteenth century and early twentieth century hardly get shortened at all, as they are hardly comprehensive to begin with, but the colonial era, the Revolution and early years of the republic, and the modern controversies might be considerably shortened. Once this is done, though, we will probably have a problem with the occasional editors who want to update the latest developments in the realignment saga, which will make the modern history section much longer again. We only mention the founding of a few of the 110 dioceses, but we go into great length to describe each step along the way of the secession of four dioceses. This seems somewhat undue emphasis, in my mind.

If one surveys the church today and sees how many church buildings were established in the nineteenth century, it is surprising that this section of the history is so short with only passing mention of growth. No mention at all is made of the Oxford movement (though we do mention the Reformed Episcopal Church and its separation, which is odd if we don't talk about the Oxford movement), or of the church's reaction to industrialization and urbanization. In the early twentieth century, we don't mention anything about suburbanization, either, nor debates about birth-control and divorce, which make it seem as if suddenly a completely placid church that had never argued about anything (women just magically appeared in General Convention in 1970, the Vietnam War was never a subject of discussion) begins to fall apart in 1976. What was the deaconess canon that got abolished and why? When were the Episcopal Church Women [1] or other parallel structures established and why (non-inclusion on vestries, etc)? What relation has the Church had to the military (Bishop of the Armed Forces) and how did it react to the World Wars? Did the Church play a role in the peace movement or the civil rights movement? And how did that sentence about "More than one-quarter of the nation's presidents..." get in there, and is it in the right place?--Bhuck (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a detailed comparison of the history section of the main EC article, and the History of the EC article. After tinkering a bit, I have made the History article fairly similar to the history section here. A few sticklers for details might want to unlink a date or two, or change some of the phrasing around the ordination of women "The first women were officially ordained to the priesthood" vs. "The first women were canonically ordained to the priesthood" for example. Now, I would say, if someone else were to shorten the Colonial, the Revolutionary, and the Controversial eras, while leaving the Nineteenth Century and the 1890-1975 sections at their current length, we would be taking a step in the right direction towards summarization in the main EC article. The next step would be to improve the History article in the 1800-1975 periods, and then re-do the summary of those eras when we have better material to work from. Does that sound like a good plan?--Bhuck (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

While this would also need fixing in the history article, it is of sufficient importance that I mention it here, instead, assuming that those who are watching the history article are also watching this one. Currently, we have the following text in the article: "In 1789, representative clergy from nine dioceses met in Philadelphia to ratify the church's initial constitution. The Episcopal Church was formally separated from the Church of England in 1789 so that clergy would not be required to accept the supremacy of the British monarch." Yet, if we look at the numbering here, we see that General Convention had already met a couple times before it was even established (assuming it was established in the constitution that was ratified in 1789). How did the meetings of General Convention in 1785 and 1786 come to pass, and by what authority? Were New England dioceses represented there? Shouldn't we mention these conventions in the history article, or even in the history subsection of the general article?--Bhuck (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Social issues

Shouldn't the social issues section be cut down to reflect the fact that much of it is a repeat of the modernization section? Sweetmoose6 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

...or replaced with something that emphasizes the present more than the past, while the individual historical things should go into the modernization section (which is a subsection of the history section) -- and then the history section should become the History of the Episcopal Church article, and the history section be a summary of that article.--Bhuck (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Parish church template

Warning: there is a proposed deletion discussion about to windup on this and other templates of interest to Anglicans/Episcopalians. clariosophic (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ACNA in "Responses to the controversies"

An editor has twice recently added text to "Responses to the controversies" about the recent formation of the Anglican Church in North America. I've deleted it because the new church is not the Episcopal Church, and is formed by people who are not the Episcopal Church. It's no more a topic of this article than if the ELCA and the LCMS decided to get together. It's not about people leaving the Episcopal Church to create the ACNA; it's about people who already have left changing their names and allegiances around. Tb (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How is this not a response to the controversies within the ECUSA? I fail to see how a short sentence on this is irrelevant, but a huge picture of a replica of John Cabot's ship is relevant, or a lengthy discussion of the "Official" name. Here this is about, as you say, Anglicans who already have left (response to the controversy) setting up an alternative to the ECUSA that has been recognized by another province of the international Anglican church (as I understand it at least). How is this not relevant especially considering the context? I don't mean to sound argumentative but I am certainly confused.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "alternative to the ECUSA" any more than Methodism is "an alternative to Anglicanism", or Anglicanism is "an alternative to Roman Catholicism", or, for that matter, Christianity is "an alternative to Judaism". It's a separate denomination that is unaffiliated with ECUSA and the Anglican Communion. This page already mentions "Continuing Anglicanism", which is enough. The details of that movement belong in articles relating to it, not here. —Angr 23:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

When people leave the Episcopal Church, that's relevant. But what they do once they leave is no longer relevant. It's perfectly clear (see, for example, United Episcopal Church of North America#Departures from The Episcopal Church) that many of these groups define themselves entirely in terms of their differences from The Episcopal Church, and continue to find events in the Episcopal Church extremely important to them even years or decades after they have left. But this is not an article about disaffected former Episcopalians, and what they choose to do or fret about after having left is not the Episcopal Church. The response to the Episcopal Church was to leave (and the article covers that quite well already); what they do after leaving is not something about the Episcopal Church. Tb (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The ECUSA does not exist in a vacuum, where external events, especially those occurring within the Anglican world, have no importance or relation to it at all. How do you justify calling this another denomination? I am certain it involves a definition of Anglican that is subject to dispute, but I would like to hear the argument. The part in bold was the text that was removed the second time and it was cited. This constitutes a sentence and a half on an emerging Anglican movement and ecclesiastical structure apart from the ECUSA in North America and you maintain it is irrelevant to the ECUSA? Anyway here is the text, the citations are available under the last edit: Others withdrew from the Episcopal Church but aligned with other bodies within the Anglican Communion. The two movements are generally referred to as the Continuing Anglican movement and Anglican realignment, although currently an emergent province has been formed in North America to create a seperate ecclesiastical structure from the ECUSA. (see Global Anglican Future Conference)."[44] The emergent Province claimed as of April 16, 2009 to have a membership of approximately 100,000 Christians in Canada and the US, [45] and it has been recognized by the Anglican Church of Nigeria.[46]Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, as far as your example about the UEC goes, I would not take Wikipedia as the church's definition of itself, or any organization's for that matter. Here is their website [2]. I went there and I would challenge you to show me one mention of the ECUSA. In addition the UECNA is part of the Continuing Anglican movement, which began in the 1970s. This is different from the Anglican Church in North America. The Continuing movement has an interesting history that I did not know much about until recently, but they are different and I think citing that as an example confuses the issue at hand. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Once y'all leave the Episcopal Church, the deal is, ya have to leave. That's what happens whe ya leave. Once ya leave, yur no longer part of it, see? I know the ACNA deems its every move as being of intense interest to the Episcopal Church, but that's not reciprocated. If the ACNA wants to be associated with the Episcopal Church, it knows the way, but has chosen, about as explicitly and offensively as possible, not to be. So it's not the Episcopal Church, and it's inappropriate to think that the Episcopal Church page should post pointers to every "alternative". (And it has nothing to do with whether the statement is sourced.) Finally, you made a change, two editors have now objected; there is no consensus for your change. It's wildly inappropriate for you to re-add it [3] simply because you are "not convinced". Wikipedia works by consensus, and there is manifestly not consensus for the change you have proposed. I ask you to respect the procedures, and if you still believe the change is necessary or beneficial, to continue to discuss it, but not to insist upon re-making it even over objections and in the absence of consensus. Tb (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is not owned by the Episcopal Church; it is not an advertisement for the Episcopal Church; it doesn't matter whether the Episcopal Church is interested in the ACNA or not (at least for purposes of inclusion or deletion). You have also made some sweeping accusations and claims, which you have not supported and I question what authority you have to even make them. Further wikipedia does work by consensus but there is similarly no consensus for you to remove the information. It kind of works both ways. You have simply failed to provide adequate reasons for deleting it, while I have supplied reasons for including it. I don't really know what to say to all this "ya'll" stuff. What was that all about? Does that qualify as good rhetoric where you are from?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is also getting a lot more heated and personal than it should and I apologize for my part in it. The only issue is whether or not the deleted text is relevant to the article.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misstating the history here. The article has never mentioned the ACNA, until you added it in this pair of edits: [4], [5]. I reverted it here ([6]), expecting that if you wanted to discuss the addition of your text, you would do so in talk, in accord with the Bold-Revert-Discuss methodology. Instead, you added the material again, in this series of edits: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Again, the text was objectionable to me, so I deleted it [13], and opened a discussion here [14]. It is your addition to the article which is under consideration, which two editors have found objectionable, and which should not be re-added unless consensus to the addition is reached. At the same time, I'm entirely happy to discuss it. Of course this article is not owned by the Episcopal Church, but it is about the Episcopal Church. The ACNA is not the Episcopal Church, it was formed by people who are not the Episcopal Church. It is no more an "alternative" to the Episcopal Church than is the Roman Catholic Church, or the ELCA, or the Assemblies of God. You have failed to explain, in my view, what the ACNA has to do with the Episcopal Church, except an unsubstantiated claim that it is "the same denomination". The article already links to two pages which directly concern the ACNA, and you've failed to give any indication which this particular non-Episcopal church, formed by non-Episcopalians, is relevant to this article, except that, in your view, it is an "alternative". You'll need to explain a connection to the subject of the article. As for "sweeping accusations and claims", that's so general that I can't really respond, except to say that if you want me to address something, you'll have to do so with a more specific question so I can be sure I know what you're talking about. Tb (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Some of your comments, by the way, suggest that you have thought this is a page for the general topic of Anglicanism in North America. That might explain the reference to the Church of Nigeria, or the "alternate" Anglican Province language. It is not the page for Anglicanism in North America; it is the page for the Episcopal Church, specifically. See Anglicanism in the Americas for that one. Tb (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I'll address your specific arguments, in case you did not catch the replies. "an emerging Anglican movement and ecclesiastical structure apart from the ECUSA": Keep in mind that this is not the page about Anglicanism in the Americas. The only thing that movement has to do with the Episcopal Church (there is no entity called "ECUSA", btw) is that it is "apart"--which is to say, it is not the Episcopal Church. Likewise, "How do you justify calling this another denomination? I am certain it involves a definition of Anglican that is subject to dispute, but I would like to hear the argument.": note that while User:Angr did say this, it isn't relevant. This isn't the page on a denomination, it's a page specifically on the Episcopal Church. The point isn't that the ACNA is a different denomination, really (and I suspect User:Angr simply misspoke), but that it is a different church, and this is a page for a specific church, not a denomination. Since the ACNA is at two levels removed, it's no longer relevant. Those who left the Episcopal Church are relevant to the Episcopal Church article (and we link to the omnibus articles in question, of course) but what they have done after leaving is not relevant.Tb (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And, since you say "You have simply failed to provide adequate reasons for deleting it"...first, note that it is your addition which is under consideration. My reasons for objection to your addition are these: the addition concerns one specific non-Episcopal group, not part of the Anglican Communion, and engaging in no ecumenical relationship with the Episcopal Church, formed by people who are not members of the Episcopal Church. All the reasons you have given for its inclusion amount to "it should be included because it's not the Episcopal Church", and that's the very reason it should not be included: it's not the Episcopal Church, it's not a secession from the Episcopal Church, etc. Now, I'll grant that if the Anglican Consultative Council should admit the ACNA as a full member of the Anglican Communion, then it would certainly be worthy to note the overlapping jurisdictions. But that has not happened. Tb (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just lost everything I had typed. But Christianity Today states: "the ACNA – seen as a rival body to The Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church in Canada".[15] Rick Warren has recognized the ACNA. How is it irrelevant that these memebers are attempting to create a separate ecclesiastical structure within the US. As the edit stated: although currently an emergent province has been formed in North America to create a seperate ecclesiastical structure from the ECUSA. (see Global Anglican Future Conference)."[44] My last comments were to apologize for upsetting you. That was never my intention. Also please stop attacking me personally. I really think you saying my edits are wildly inappropriate is a bit over the top, and I certainly did not mean to misstate any history. It is all there for everyone to see.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

None of that changes the fact that the formation of the ACNA has nothing to do with ECUSA, which is the topic of this article. The groups that came together to form it did not leave ECUSA to do so; they had already left years before. And while I'm sure they like to imagine themselves as being "a rival body" to the Episcopal Church, that would only happen if they were to join the Anglican Communion. If that should ever happen (and the chances of it are remote indeed), it would certainly be worth mentioning here that ECUSA was not the sole recognized representative of the Anglican Communion in the United States. But until then, a merger of non-ECUSA "Anglicans" into a new organization is no more relevant to this article than the creation of the United Methodist Church in 1968. (P.S. I didn't misspeak.) —Angr 16:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I've stated my reasons and I'll wait to hear from others for a while. I appreciate you sticking to closely to the issue and even though I disagree with your reasoning it was concise and well put. As to the rival issue, that was from an article in Christianity Today so it may reflect the organization's view of itself, but it could also reflect the views of people outside the organization. And lastly I may have missed something with regard to your PS in that I don't think anyone accused you of misspeaking.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a mention of ACNA should be permissible. The groups that left TEC did so and many of them aligned themselves with other Anglican bodies so as to be able to stay inside the larger Anglican communion. Most of those bodies they aligned themselves with are outside of North America. The formation of ACNA is the first step to recreate a North American branch of the Anglican Communion, which will replace TEC's place as it is no longer a member of the Anglican Church. I also feel obligated that the underlying point of contention many people had with TEC was not that they ordained women or gays, it was the simple fact that Mr. Bennison came out and said, “Man wrote the Bible, so man can re-write the Bible” and was not deposed for heresy. Jmclark56 (talk) 11:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Historic and current relations with the Roman Catholic Church

I added a sentence about ecumenical relations with Rome that was removed because of sources that were missing. Anyways, it would be a good idea to find a source and to make sure that the sentence is sufficiently NPOV. ADM (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In the period that followed the Second Vatican Council, the Episcopal Church had very good relations with the Roman Catholic Church and was considered a model in terms of ecumenical relations. However, relations with Rome quietly came to a halt after the Episcopal Church decided to ordain women and accept homosexual clergy.

"Growing rift" etc.

User:Årvasbåo has added material which is so blatantly non-neutral that I feel it has to be discussed and edited down here on the talk page first before it can be added to the article. I note that all these additions are sourced to a single recent article in Christianity Today, a non-neutral Evangelical publication.

"There is a growing rift in the Episcopal church over what critics call a retreat from orthodoxy. Bishop of Bethlehem (Pennsylvania) Paul V. Marshall has claimed that the denomination's failure to uphold historic Christian teachings had made it an embarrassment."

The first sentence is accurate enough, but the second sentence presents only one side of the issue.

"The unwillingness to uphold professed standards of belief has had striking examples in bishops as John Shelby Spong and James Pike who deny several Christian core doctrines, as well as in the election of Kevin Thew Forrester, although the latter's election is not likely to be confirmed by the House of Bishops and a majority of its 111 diocesan governing boards. Forrester maintains among other things, that the crucifixion of Christ was against God's will and the shedding of his blood doesn't wash away sin; and neither does his death redeem and restore humanity. His function, according to the bishop-elect, is simply to reveal to us that we're already and always one with God. Critics charged that Thew Forrester had also altered Christian liturgies to add Buddhist, Unitarian-Universalist, and New Age principles."

This asserts as fact, rather than Evangelical opinion, that the Episcopal church is "unwilling to uphold professed standards of belief".

"While Spong and Pike made their heterodox proposals after their ordination, Forrester was elected in spite of known heterodoxy. According to Kendall Harmon, canon theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, only a minority of the diocesan governing boards opposes him because they believe the changes are contrary to Christian teaching."

This sentence presumes to take the definition of "heterodox" for granted, and contradicts something else added in the same edit: earlier the editor wrote that Forrester's "election is not likely to be confirmed", now he writes that "only a minority of the diocesan governing boards opposes him". The same article from Christianity Today is the source.

"Heterodox statements by bishop-elect Thew Forrester has met harsh criticism by leading theologians of other denominations. "He is an apostate from the Faith; and a church that ordains such a one is also apostate," said George O. Wood, general superintendent of the Assemblies of God. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler agrees with Wood."

Another sentence that presumes to know what is and isn't "heterodox", and another that presents only an Evangelical point of view. This one is of only tangential relevance anyway, since they're the opinions of members of other denominations. What the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptists think is neither here nor there; shall we add the fact that Baptists and Presbyterians reject the authority of all bishops? Or that Roman Catholics consider all Anglican orders as "absolutely null and utterly void"? The article already discusses the current turbulence in the church in sufficient detail; we don't need to add a detailed summary of a single article in an extremist magazine just because it was published last week. +Angr 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This could easily be addressed in a controversy section in the article. Most articles have one unless they are fiercely defended.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 02:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Most articles don't have a such a section, nor should they, see WP:NPOV#Article structure. Critical and controversial material should be dealt with in neutrally titled sections. It's alrady plain from the article that there are divisions, as Angr says we don't need to include every single reference just because someone's found a new hobby horse. David Underdown (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure how a controversy can be dealt with in a neutral way. By its very nature each side of the argument is non-neutral. Here quite a few cited statements from the conservative point of view have been deleted. And I guess it depends on your perspective who found the new "hobby horse" as you call it. Here the perspective that says the Episcopal church found a new "hobby horse" keeps getting deleted or pared down. This article is from a conservative publication that is well respected, so I don't really understand why that point of view should be deleted if this is really a non-neutral presentation.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

A controversy can be dealt with in a neutral way by not presenting either side's opinion as fact; the edits I removed did present the Evangelical POV as fact. It's also preferable to use publications that are themselves neutral rather than ones like Christianity Today ("well respected" surely only by those who already agree with its opinions) that don't even attempt to hide their reactionary bias or their contempt for mainline Protestantism in general and the Episcopal Church in particular. +Angr 20:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

See here is the problem. You can't present a debate without presenting an opinion or conclusion, which is POV. But you can say the conservative evangelical journal Christianity Today founded by Billy Graham opines that... Instead things like this just keep getting deleted without ever being fixed. And you question whether it is well-respected. Evangelicals make up 26.3 percent of protestants in North America while "mailine" protestants are at 18.1% according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. So it isn't like it is a minority or fringe publication. See http://religions.pewforum.org/reports Sweetmoose6 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But you can present a debate without taking sides in it, and doing so is much easier if you use secondary sources that themselves do not take sides. When you use a biased primary source like CT, of course you run the risk of reflecting that bias in the article. And while it would be possible to introduce every sentence with "Frank E. Lockwood, writing in the conservative journal Christianity Today opines that...", "Lockwood's opinion is that...", "Lockwood claims that..." and so forth, that would only present a veneer of neutrality without actually achieving it, because it would be putting undue weight on a single author's opinion published in a single article in a single journal. This one person's opinion simply isn't notable enough that it should be covered by 350 words of prose in this article. And even if it were sourced to four different articles by four different authors published in four different journals, is it really relevant to spend 350 words on outsiders' views of the Episcopal Church? Do our articles on the ELCA, the United Methodist Church, the PCUSA, and the ABCUSA spend 350 words discussing what people outside those churches think of them? +Angr 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Amount of space --> yes if relevant. Topic relevant in article? --> sure seems to be. Opinion from major, influential publication --> probably relevant. From the article on the source - Billy Graham, stated that he wanted to "plant the evangelical flag in the middle-of-the-road, taking the conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems".[2] I'm not sure the periodical is as reactionary as you say it is.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess another major overlooked point here is that one criticism, at the beginning of the article, was leveled by The Right Reverend Paul V. Marshall, Th.D., D.D., D.C.L., Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Bethlehem. So that was an internal remark, not made by the publication, merely cited in it. http://www.diobeth.org/ Sweetmoose6 (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)