Talk:Anglican realignment

Widening the focus

Clearly the Anglican realignment movememnt is not restricted to the United States. I've edited the article to include Canada, and those with knowledge of any developments elsewhere in the Communion are encouraged to further expand the scope. I've also removed what I took to be a rather lengthy (albeit well-cited) screed concerning the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. It seemed to be a textbook case of the dictum that well-sourced POV is still POV. fishhead64 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revisions are great. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra mural

The phrase comes from non-TEC Episcopalian publications. For example, in The Christian Challenge there is this letter [Letter from Bishop of Ruvuma to David Moyer] of Jan 2005 which says "whom Forward Now calls "Extra-Mural Anglicans". So, the phrase is accepted in "extra-mural" Episcopalian/Anglican churches and is a convenient short-hand to describe the divergent types of Anglicanism outside TEC and the Anglican Communion's walls. "Continuing Churches" is only a sub-set of all the extra-mural Episcopalian/Anglican churches. For example, the Anglican Province of America is outside of the Continuing Movement - see [A History of the Anglican Province of America]:"No formal relations exist with any of the major Continuing bodies". This is but one example. The point being: Continuing Churches is not synonymous with all those Anglican-like churches outside of the TEC. "Extra-mural" as a convenient adjective does encompass everybody. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition is "existing or functioning outside or beyond the walls, boundaries, or precincts of an organized unit" which is applicable in this use. It is used by these groups in the traditional meaning of the word. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The term 'extramural anglican' is not recent. For example, the title of a lecture 'Extramural Anglicans' by Bishop Mercer given on 20th June, 1987 at Saint Chad's Church Canningham UK by the Right Rev'd Bishop Robert Mercer, CR on the occasion of the Northern Festival of the Anglican Society which can be read here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you search for 'extra mural' or 'extramural' at The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism, you'll find that the term is used. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Extramural does not make sense in this case. These churches want to continue within the communion. They do not intend to form their own "denomination" (for lack of a better word). Instead they want to continue as an entity seperate of the Episcopalian Church (US) but within the Anglican community... This usage is new and I'm not sure it is either consistent or accepted and is confusing in this case. I don't think using this term is helpful; is there a better way to refer to these churches? Don't they have a proper title?144.42.9.186 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In this article Changes In AMiA’s Structure Raise Concerns About Ordination Policy 23 Jan 2007, it is used in this context:

In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it:...

Google search 'extra mural' or 'extramural' and 'anglican' or episcopalian' will demonstrate that the phrase 'extra mural' is used in the context of describing all anglican-type churches outside of the Anglican Communion. Many of these churches have no interest in joining or re-joining the Anglican Communion, and are not part of the Anglican realignment debate. Some 'anglican realigment' organizations are part of the Anglican Communion and some are part of the 'extra mural' anglican churches. This straddling of the fence causes confusion and the Anglican realignment article does not make this clear: by definition, all organizations in the 'anglican realignment' debate ought to be within the Anglican Communion but complete schism from the Anglican Communion seems likely for some. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the adjective 'independent' as in independent Anglican / Episcopalian church is confusing in the Anglican realignment debate because of the structure of the Anglican Communion. The Provinces are 'Independent' - autonomous - such that the Church of England holds no authority over TEC, for example. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Openly gay

The issue with Robinson is that he is 'openly' gay and not that he is partnered or non-celibate. This must be so because there have been closeted gay bishops in the TEC which were known widely enough but did not raise much fuss. Also, the case of Jeffrey John's - erstwhile Bishop of Reading - who declared himself both openly gay and celibate but was forced down would suggest that 'celibate' is not at issue. Thus, the issue must be 'openly' gay. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the CofE officially allows partnered gay couples to be ordained as long as they promise to be celibate. Homosexuality is not the issue. Homosexual activity is the issue. Seriously, this is like Christian Morality 101.EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Different people have different issues. I suspect Peter Akinola's problem with Gene Robinson has as much to do with the latter's being openly gay as with his noncelibacy. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Robinson himself has spoken about the issue and has said that it is his being 'openly' gay that has 'caused the rift than having a same sex partner (see his biography). As for the Church of England, the Jeffrey John case threw the 'official policy' out of the window. John tried to assure those in authority that he indeed was celibate but that did not stop his removal. No, the empirical evidence to date suggests that 'openness' is far more of a liability to a gay priest or bishop than sexual activity or inactivity. As for Christian Morality 101, Robinson has spoken of his 'openness' in those terms: hypocrisy, lying and obfuscation are all seriously non-Christian. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it comes to that, so is hating people. At any rate, obviously the openness is the main problem, because if he were closeted, well, no one would know. And you can't have a controversy about something you're unaware of. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has a quote from Bishop Schori: see BBC - US Church 'unfairly criticised'.

The threat of schism in the Anglican Communion was prompted by the appointment of a gay bishop.
The US church elected an openly gay man Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003.
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori defended her ministry.
"He is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop, he's certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop," she said.
"He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."
She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.
"There's certainly a double standard," she told BBC Radio 4's PM programme .

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What the above discussion does not account for is that an openly gay person could be a fine bishop as long as they were celibate, in the eyes of the conservatives. Also, the quote from KJS is unimpressive as the question is why the conservatives are leaving. She is not an adequate source for information about her opponents motivations. One does not ask the pope for an explanation of Luther's motives. Neither is Gene Robinson an objective source for an explanation of his opponents' motivations. EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The neutrality tag removed after constructive edits made to article.  -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just original research

While it's making some attempt at neutrality, the article is still tilted heavily towards a liberal/reappraiser theory of what is going on. It's particularly a problem in the assessment of intent and the general tone of prophecy in the article. As we are talking about events that have yet to transpire (which is to say the realignment itself), the level of analysis in this article is unjustifiable. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you say the realignment has yet to transpire; as the article says, the Continuing Anglican Movement started over 30 years ago (perhaps not realignment sensu stricto since that's outside the Communion), and there are already parishes affiliated with Rwanda and Nigeria, and an entire diocese affiliated with the Southern Cone. As for the liberal bias and "tone of prophecy" you seem to perceive, you're going to have to be more specific, because I at least am not finding any of either. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of this article either. However, I am much less fond of the "neutrality banner". What would it take for the neutrality tag to be removed? Some editor at some time - hint - ought to re-write the entire article. But, I agree with Angr (talk · contribs): as the article now stands in its imperfection, I don't detect a problem in "intent" nor "the general tone of prophecy in the article". Perhaps, this is because the complaint of neutrality is too abstract. Mangoe (talk · contribs), could you pin down the problem? Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go into it in more detail later when I have time to really dig into it, but the main issue I see is that the article tends to favor seeing the situation as having its roots specifically in homosexuality, whereas I think most of the conservative instigators (and maybe others) would tend to consider that simply the presenting crisis that prompted a "line in the sand" response. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reason I also see an original research problem is that this seems to be assembling a history of the event with a lot of picking and choosing, in the absence of a definitive analysis to use as a guide. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. And, there are secondary sources available to build a good article upon. There is no reason that this article has to give an appearance of original research. I hope you can carry this article to a GA level. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who placed the neutrality tag made constructive edits to the article. There has been no edit warring. I am removing the tag as no further edits have been made in several days. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Propaganda

Beyond not being neutral, this article is clearly propaganda, inappropriate advocacy, and religious self-promotion. All of those things clearly violate Wikipedia's policies.

It's obvious that it's here just in case someone searched for "Anglican realignment," they would get a clearly biased article cloaking as something objective. The orig author states: "However, under historic Anglican polity, such a move is not possible." Come on. Do you really think people are that stupid?

Anglikaner (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that particular issue. Please point out other specific problems for our examination. Mangoe (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the article as currently written inappropriately advocates for one side of the dispute. The statements that homosexuality is "specifically condemned in both the Old and New Testaments" and that leadership of women in the church is "likewise prohibited by both Scripture and tradition" are radically POV and anything but neutral. These contentious opinions are what instigated the dissenters' secession from the church, and by presenting them here as is they were settled facts the article ends up taking sides in the controversy and becomes a polemic for one very narrow religous POV. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes I referred to were made nearly a week ago by 74.242.71.221, I'm surprised they have gone unchallenged for six days. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagged

The article has been tagged. The term "anglican realignment" appears to have been created so as to write this article, unless there is a reliable third party reference for this. As such the whole thing appears POV. Brief research does not indicate a specific movement except as articulated in this article - unless it can be shown otherwise. Please provide the references and the tags can be removed. --Fremte (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Realignment" appears to be the neutral term used by most sources. FAQ for Parishes from the non-realignment Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church), uses the term "realign" for the movement. "Pittsburgh votes to leave Episcopal Church, align with Southern Cone" from the Episcopal News Service used "realignment" repeatedly to describe the situation in Pittsburgh; it also notes a pamphlet from the realigned Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) called "Realignment Realities: What You Need to Know". --Closeapple (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search for the term returned 39,500 hits and the very first one I checked predated this article by 3 years. Clearly the phrase exists independently of WP. While WP:NEO might conceivably apply, usage seems to be relatively 'official' (ie, used both by those within the movement itself, and the mainstream press who report on it). More sources would be a good idea in the long run, but the article itself is relatively well-written and informative. Thanks  : ) 71.194.129.10 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed OR and Opinion

I went through and removed any OR meant to support the author's position rather than to stat facts relevant to the article. I also removed a lot of text that was along the line of "which begs the question" , "some have moved too far for others", and anything else which is speculation rather than fact. I also removed a whole bunch of just text that isn't relevant and any unsupported statements. For example, this article originally gave 5 reasons or so for the split but the article only supports 2 of those reasons (gay and female ordination). Also removed anything that refered to the relative 'morality' of the groups involved. This original article was awful and incredibly biased. If you take an excerpt and search for it you'll find whoever has authored this has an agena and has been posting to other sites. I went through and tried to cut out the fat but there still needs to be more solid facts to replace the speculation and conjecture I removed.144.42.9.186 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion regarding the OR and Opinion, I suggest the header be removed. If there is no disagreement or discussion for 30 days, I'll make the change.Will (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"timeline of developments"

The "timeline of developments" is an outright WP:RECENTISM. It does not need to be there. The information in it needs to be rewritten into appropriate encyclopedic form in the rest of the article, and the section deleted. Tb (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the timeline to the history section to prep for rewrite. It fits better there and can easily be reworked as historical development.Will (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A province of what?

In the sidebar on the series on Anglican Realignment, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is listed under the subheading "Provinces", along with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America is a province of the Anglican Communion. But of what is the Anglican Church in North America a province?

There are many supporters of the Anglican Church in North America who aspire for it to be recognized as a new province of the Anglican Communion (exactly how that would happen not being wholly clear). Some of these supporters aspire to ACNA, as such a province, actually supplanting The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (two existing provinces of the Anglican Communion). Others aspire to its becoming an additional province, not supplanting any existing provinces.

But still other supporters seem to be not certain that they want ACNA to become a province of the Anglican Communion at all, but perhaps to become part of a new organization of "Anglican" churches, apart from the Anglican Communion.

In any case, since ACNA is currently not a province of the Anglican Communion, what is the listing on the Anglican Realignment sidebar meant to mean? Is it currently a province of some other "Anglican" body? Perhaps that should be identified.

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ACNA does seek to become a province of the Anglican Communion; this desire is enshrined in its constitution and canons. Currently it is not a province of any larger Christian Communion. However, it does define itself as an Anglican province (which is not the same thing as a province of the Anglican Communion) within North America. It uses the term "province in formation" to define itself. I suppose they would say that since the term "province" means a territory then the fact that they are an Anglican church with a defined territory (Canada and the U.S.) then they are certainly using the term "province" in an essentially correct way. Connection with the Anglican Communion is not inherently necessary to be an Anglican church with a defined geographical territory. Ltwin (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

==

Makes sense to me: that an entity may be considered a province within Anglicanism, not needing to be a province of another entity (such as a "communion"). It might even be seen as meeting definition 2 from The American Heritage Dictionary:

2. Ecclesiastical. A division of territory under the jurisdiction of an archbishop.

The editor in me has trouble with an entity being both a "province in formation" and a "(current) province", but this is a subtlety probably not warranting concern.

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

==

With regard to the "enshrinement" spoken of above in the Constitution and Canons of ACNA of the organization's desire to become recognized as a member church and province of the Anglican Communion:

In the Constitution, the only passage approaching that seems to be this:

III-3

The Province will seek to represent orthodox North American Anglicans in the councils of

the Anglican Communion.

In the Canons, there does not seem to be any comparable provision.

It is interesting that there are frequent references to "other provinces of the Anglican Communion".

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and you also have to factor in the connections that groups within ACNA like CANA still have with the overseas Anglican Provinces as well. It can get confusing at times. Ltwin (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

In addition, here in the Fort Worth, Texas area we have the situation that the "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" (non-TEC) remains publicly unclear about what "church" it is a diocese of (no church at all being mentioned on its Web site except perhaps buried in some topical correspondence), and seemingly has (or perhaps had) linkages both through ACNA and through Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.

It does announce itself thus: "This Diocese is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion . . .", which presumably allegedly derives from its (unannounced) role as a diocese of Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.

Doug Kerr 76.221.81.28 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting ahead of events a bit in South Carolina

While it seems unlikely that the House of Bishops is going to exonerate Lawrence (and indeed, it's not clear yet that Lawrence is even going to bother to defend himself), it's a little premature to talk about the departure of the diocese as a done deal. Also, Conger's description of this as an "expulsion" is a dubious oversimplification. South Carolina, after all, set up the provisions that cause them to leave under these circumstances; it isn't as though they couldn't turn around and rescind those canons. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Was Really Excluded

It is a fact, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina was excluded from the TEC. The official website shows several documents where it is clear that this really happened.[1]. This article is precisely called "Episcopal Church Abandons Bishop and Diocese": "Bishop Lawrence’s actions have been taken to protect the integrity of the Diocese and its parishes. In the exercise of his freedom of speech, he has stated his personal good faith beliefs concerning the theology and polity of this Diocese. The parishes of this Diocese have repeatedly joined him in expressing those same beliefs. The actions taken by the Episcopal Church make it clear that such freedom of expression is intolerable to them. It is this Diocese and its Bishop who have been abandoned; left behind by a denomination that has chosen a radically different path from that of its founders. For that reason, we have disassociated ourselves from the Episcopal Church and will meet again in Convention on November 17th to consider further responses to these actions by the denomination we helped found. By God’s grace, we look forward to many more generations freely exercising the faith first brought to these shores so many generations before us." [2]Mistico (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the news at "The State", of 19 October 2012, "Lowcountry SC diocese finally breaks with Episcopal Church": "CHARLESTON — After years of controversy over ordination of gays and other issues, the conservative Diocese of South Carolina has finally split from the national Episcopal Church./ The split with one of the oldest dioceses in the nation came this week after the conservative leader of the diocese, Bishop Mark Lawrence, was notified by the national church’s Disciplinary Board for Bishops that he is considered to have abandoned the national church. A board considered similar issues a year ago and concluded he had not." [Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/19/2486425/lowcountry-sc-diocese-finally.html#storylink=cpy] The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is now out of the TEC and will decide his future at a convention to be held at 17 November 2012, according to their official website.Mistico (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The facts are that the diocese set up a set of withdrawal canons contingent upon what the national church did. The national church obliged them by carrying out one of the acts which set off these canons, whereupon the diocese carried through with the promises set forth in the canons. Everything else is interpretation.

I've read all these articles and plenty more besides. Conger's interpretation is tendentious and strained; whether or not SC's withdrawal was set off by national church action, it is the canons they set up which are the vehicle of separation, and if it weren't for those canons, they would still be fully within the church just like any other diocese. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)