Talk:Anglican realignment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anglican realignment article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. December 2006 to December 2007


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Neutrality discussion

The following discussion is archived. 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)

[edit] 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] 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)