Talk:American Anglican Council

Discussion

The American Anglican Council (AAC) was formed in the mid 1990s in response to a perceived movement within the Episcopal Church toward acceptance of homosexual persons, including the acceptance of openly gay clergy and the possible development of a liturgy for the blessing of same-sex unions. Supporters of the AAC see such developments not only as a departure from traditional Christian moral values, they argue that it is a depature from Christian orthodoxy itself.

In 2003, the Episcopal Church's General Convention approved the election of V. Gene Robinson as Bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire. Robinson lives as an openly gay man with a partner of more than fifteen years. The AAC contends that in taking such action,the Episcopal Church has departed from the Faith as it was received from the Apostles.

Thus, the AAC seeks to pressure the Episcopal Church to renounce its current direction, and to embrace a more traditional teaching on human sexuality. The AAC coordinates its efforts with a variety of conservative groups within the United States, as well as soliciting the support of the more conservative members of the Anglican Communion found in Africa, Central and South America, and Southeast asia.

Those who disagree with the position of the American Anglican Council would argue that while homosexuality is a relevant subject of debate within the realm of Christian morality and sexual ethics, it does not rise to the level of being an issue that defines the Christian faith (orthodoxy) on the same level as the Trinity, or the Incarnation.

---

Of course this is important. The division within the Episcopal Church in the US over issues of homosexual clergy threatens to split it in two. This is religious schism in the making.

The Letter J 22:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

re. the comment above: "it does not rise to the level of being an issue that defines the Christian faith (orthodoxy) on the same level as the Trinity, or the Incarnation" -

I'm not sure you could find anyone in the AAC who would disagree with this statement.

The consecration of Robinson was more something which "sparked off" a movement to reform the ECUSA on many fronts. For example, a (now retired) bishop of the ECUSA John_Shelby_Spong was known not only for his rejection of the Trinity and the Incarnation, but attacks on those who believe in these doctrines as "Fundamentalists."

The AAC would rather argue for a preservation of such teachings - which, though officially never doubted by the ECUSA, have not been adequately supported. It is not so much a problem with Spong's arguments per se, as many voice similar criticisms of Christianity, which should not be repressed. Rather, it is the fact that the scriptures are quite clear that Christians are not to teach doctrines which are contrary to scripture. Few things, perhaps none, are dealt with so prohibitively in scripture as misrepresenting the teaching of Christ while claiming to be a follower of Christ. So for one calling one's self Christian to misrepresent the most essential Christian doctrines, like the incarnation, is very serious indeed.

Spong's beliefs are not terribly "modern," and most of them represent nothing new. Historic and academic sources he brings up in argument are often, to one familliar with the territory, distressing - so irrelevant or contrived that one wonders from time to time if he might not suffer from some disorder - actually reminding one sometimes of the arguments of poorly-informed "real" Fundamentalists for what most take to be lost causes. Critical, "Modern" minds are not usually terribly interested in some rebaked version of Christianity, or a thing claiming to be a new version of Christianity since it uses some of the words and imagery which one commonly associates with Christainity, any more than one would would be interested in a "New Stalinism" as a belief which adds a belief in an individual's right to posess property and the means of production, and other beliefs contrary to those of Stalin's, but maintains the in the "packaging," along with a bit of Socialist Realism art and other trappings in the paraphenalia and T-shirts sold on their website.

Certainly the ECUSA cannot be equated with Spong, but Spong did receive enough support from the ECUSA to prevent his being removed from this position of authority. And traces of Spongishness are frequent in the ECUSA, creating the extra difficulty of locating and dealing with "real" problems of abuse and legalism in the church, since the ECUSA has itself become such an easy target of critique, and at times seems to show signs of abandonning the value of rational critique.

So while the issue of homosexuality often occupies the main attention of the media, as well as substance of debates regarding the ECUSA, it is for many simply a symptom of an underlying tendency in the ECUSA to "commercialize" a faith, which in "reality" is a faith which you either believe in, or do not believe in - and that belief is ultimately belief in those teachings of historic texts.

Neutral POV

This page has been on a see-saw between biases. I haven't updated it yet (except to add some links) but it needs to stop reading like the accusations of a liberal watchdog group. Noticeably lacking in any of the versions is any statements from the AAC.Mangoe 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As a former member of this denomination (and one awfully jaded and cynical by its ideals, past and present), I suspect no amount of editing is going to placate both sides in this hateful, venomous situation. Nonetheless, it is quite fair to characterize IRD as a "conservative" or "right-wing" organization, as its ideals are thoroughly congruent with social and political conservatism, much as Spong's are with "liberal" or "progressive" stances. Perhaps if the critics would just be more willing to accept labels themselves, one wouldn't need to seek so much "balance", because in this situation, I do not see any forthcoming.Mike 22:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment the article isn't too bad, actually (and I say that from a conservative Episcopalian POV). It's hard to imagine that it will stay that way long, though. Mangoe 23:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some statements from the AAC in the hopes that the NPOV tag can soon be removed. What do you think, Mangoe?--Bhuck 10:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope this will do. I rearranged material and eliminated the "more orthodox" remark but kept all the IRD/Chapman material. Mangoe 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that article is much improved. I do question why the AAC's oppostiion to the ECUSA's position on homosexuality is not stressed in the article. I do not say that it is the only issue that the AAC addresses, but I think a fair representation of their policies would show that it is the issue that most crystalized their opposition to the current leaership of the ECUSA. A review of the AAC's website, shows that among their resource papers, and talking points (their words, not mine) homosexuality is the primary subject in more than 50%. One says,

"The crisis has also resurfaced older issues, and anyone following our new ‘blog’ environment will know these matters are discussed with varying degrees of energy and intelligence – whether women’s ordination; or catholic and protestant emphases in Anglicanism; or basic matters like the authority of scripture, 1979 Prayer Book worship, and so forth. It is fair to say that the same-sex issue, whatever else it may be in its own right, has shaken the foundations not just of the Episcopal Church as an institution, but the very identity, logic and historical claim of Anglicanism to be what it has said it is, in Christ." [1]

In their own words, the AAC sees a crisis in Anglicanism and sees it having been exclated by the homosexuality issues. Therefore I beleive that the article should at the very least make reference to this issue in paritcular and not just cover it under the phrase, "sexual morality." Franklin Moore 17:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, it's mentioned in the first sentence, but feel free to add specific statements. Mangoe 17:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that in order to remain unbiased in POV this article should also make a mention of the larger problematic around the ECUSA within the Anglican Communion, of which it is still, on the date of this writing, a part. The AAC wished to remain within the ECUSA (as opposed to, say, the American Mission, representing churches which officially joined provinces of bishops of other countries in order to be free of the authority of their own ECUSA bishops), though tension was growing in the rest of the world in the Anglican Communion regarding the ECUSA. The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently made a statement which amounts to suggesting that the ECUSA may be changed in status to no longer being a full member of the Anglican Communion, a prospect which many news sources are reporting as being "expelled from the communion." The head of the Anglican Communion in Africa has also called for the expulsion of the ECUSA, and even hinted at consequences were this not to occur - and a number of dioceses within the church have applied for alternative oversite - thus it would seem that the controversy surrounding the ECUSA itself parallels or exceeds the controversy mentioned here regarding the AAC, indeed, a controversy which is more significant than the AAC's links to the IRD. The standpoints of the AAC at this point seem to point to issues in the ECUSA which the rest of the Anglican Communion see as points of tension, perhaps even irreconcilable tension - unless the ECUSA does change its course. Anglicans in general tend to see themselves as non-sectarianish, non-fussy, like-minded people who are part of one big, tolerant communion, and not really a "church" per se but rather a bunch of people amongst the Universal church - "protestant with close ties to Catholics" - never really considering themselves the "one true annointed community," started by a rather piggish individual trying to get rid of his wife. So not mentioning this sort of seems almost akin to trying to look around the elephant in the room - not taking part in the communion would indeed be a very big deal for what it means to be an Episcopalian (it would make the church feel much more "sectarian" as a church with "special beliefs"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.175.14 (talk • contribs) 18:18, July 7, 2006.

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Leadership

I've just done a few minor edits on the list of the membership of the Board of Trustees. Someone who knows more than I about the current state of the AAC might like to check it for accuracy. Bpmullins 01:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

IRD ties

The AAC has close ties and for many years shared an office with the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a right-wing organization seeking to influence U.S. domestic and foreign policy and reform American mainline Christian denominations to bring them into closer conformity with their conservative political and religious views.

I removed that paragraph; although it seems interesting, it is unsourced, vague and gives the impression to the casual reader of guilt by association. What ties? Says who? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, now it has been sourced. The problem is that the source is not a good one. Naughton is the press guy for the Diocese of Washington, one of the chief antagonists of the AAC. (If you look atthe link you will see that it is to the diocesan website.) Mangoe 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The ties still sound vague in Naughton's article. Something about donors giving to both organisations. I think Naughton (and his background) should be mentioned directly in the prose. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to add something to the mentioning of the Diocese of Washington, such as "like many other Episcopal dioceses" or so, to point out that the American Anglican Council is opposed by a large portion of the Episcopal Church and not just by the Diocese of Washington. While Washington might be more on the left end of the spectrum, I don't know that that is particularly more true of that diocese than of, say, Newark, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, New York, or various other dioceses. Also, the problem with the AAC, like many other church-internal organizations, is that it only attracts the attention of supporters or detractors, while 99% of society could care less. So I am also concerned that highlighting Naughton's affiliations (I have no problem with mentioning them, but the question is at what point mention blends into emphasis) might falsely imply that his opinions differ from what a "mainstream" opinion might be (in a way, they do differ, as the mainstream opinion is probably "never heard of them and could care less", but the implied message might be that the mainstream opinion is "what a nice, benevolent organization!"). Indeed, there seem to be a lot of tags like "claimed" and "suggested", where there is absolutely no indication that the claims are false. Does anyone claim or suggest that the AAC did NOT share offices with the IRD? Furthermore, Naughton and his diocesan affiliation are prominently mentioned in the footnote. Why is the additional highlighting in the text necessary, if not to imply that this is somehow a particularly untrustworthy source?--Bhuck 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally don't trust him because is, after all, the agent of the diocese, and the diocese in turn has been the target of AAC criticism from the latter's inception. Naughton certainly has a motive to emphasize the degree of Ahramson contamination while minimizing that Ahramson may genuinely have an interest in the matter (being an Episcopalian and all that) and may not have as much control as Naughton hints at. Of course we all have our different opinions, but Naughton's exposé read to me as an attack rather than as a neutral investigation of the matter. In any case, his affiliation is entirely germane: he's an employee of the opposition, and readers need to know that. Mangoe 17:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to highlight Naughton's affliliation—just mention it in small print to clarify that, like most writers, he is not impartial. I am more concerned with Bhuck's latest changes. I don't think Naughton "pointed out" close ties, nor did he "describe" the Ahmanson influence. I am not on either side, but my reading of his article was that he presented circumstancial evidence that hint at close ties and donor influence, without actually saying that Ahmanson is a donor (he doesn't seem to be a trustee or have official influence.) No-one has pointed me to other sources that continue the debate further. I think his article is important, because without it, we only have AAC's point of view; but I don't think, as encyclopedia writers, we are entitled to give Naughton's thesis more status than "claims".

Bhuck's bit about pastoral oversight by Uganda should stay–did you add it to the Ahmanson bio too?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on that language either. As far as Naughton's status is concerned, as long as it is clear in the main article (not just in the footnotes) that he's a party in the dispute and not just a reporter.

I'm not so sure about the treatment of Ahmanson's parish because I think it's going to be hard for the average reader to understand the statement without a lot of context. At the very least it needs a date and a cite. Mangoe 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits of 9June2007

I reverted the edits that called the AAC 'non-episcopal' because it's certainly an Episcopal organization even if it's not 'Episcopalian': there's no question that they are still led by bishops.

The use of the word 'agitating' is non-encyclopedic as well. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

January 2010 "bulldoze"

A first-time editor User:Wikianglican removed several sections, citing, in part, a technicality about the meaning of the phrase "ecumenical relations." Why didn't this individual just change the headline instead of excommunicating the whole section of the article? Bridgman (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Current Status??

I'm not very familiar with this organization. The article makes it sound like it is a joint project that includes both ACNA and conservative TEC people and churches, but AAC's own website has a much stronger tilt towards ACNA and away from TEC. Does the article need to be updated to reflect that? Another issue: use of the word "orthodox." What exactly does it mean for the article to use phrases such as "orthodox Episcopal Churches"? Wouldn't it be more straightforward to use the word conservative? "Orthodox," to me, seems to have a little too much value judgement baked into it. Sort of like "we, the orthodox, are trying to do things the right way, while the others, who have departed from orthodoxy, are doing things wrong." Conservative and liberal seem more straightforward. Dunncon13 (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Logo

The logo of the American Anglican Council has since changed for reasons as described here on their website. https://americananglican.org/news/american-anglican-council-launches-new-logo/ Whilst the old logo does still appear from time to time, it probably should be replaced here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.123.22 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)