Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Colleges "affiliated" with the Episcopal Church

I haven't checked the other colleges on the list, but whoever wrote that Columbia is affiliated with the Episcopal Church does not seem to comprehend the meaning of the word "affiliated". Initially, Columbia was indeed affiliated the Epipscopal Church. That was around 1754. Here is a passage from the Wikipedia article on Columbia University:

"The nature of the [1784] reopening, however, made possible via the encouragements of Governor Clinton and the state legislature, ensured that Columbia College would be an institution as distinct as much in kind as in name. The new charter made no mention of the college's former Anglican/Episcopalian affiliations."

So there has been no affiliation with the Episcopal church since 1784. Nothing wrong with mentioning this former affiliation, of course; it just should not be described in the present tense! So I am removing it.Daqu 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that there are quite a few colleges with historical ties to the Episcopal church--Trinity College in Hartford, for instance, should we have separate lists for currently and formerly associated colleges? Pgentry 06:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Uniform format proposal

A proposal is being floated at the project page that there be a standard format for organising each article about national provinces of the Anglican Communion, including this one. Please consider participating in the straw vote and discussion. Cheers! Fishhead64 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. JenKilmer 00:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you wait on this until next week. It may become a moot point. The ECUSA is not likely to remain in the AC for long. Unless rearranging deck chairs pleases you. 129.74.201.70 18:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that reports of full schism are overblown. The CoE itself does not interpret the Bible literally either, or put the Bible above tradition and reason. Sometimes I wonder if the conservatives focused on ECUSA have even noticed that CoE voted to consecrate women bishops or that that CoE priests have entered into "civil partnerships". JenKilmer 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What is episcopal

Hello, my name is Kaitlyn Wilson. I am 13 years old and I am currently attending Gallatin High School. The only problem I have with this article is you don't really tell the true meaning of being Episcopal and you also don't go into great detail about their beliefs or what they study. Please inform the people that read this article what the true meaning of being Episcopal is.

Thank You, Kaitlyn Wilson—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.185.88.253 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

This is a good question from the point of grammar. Episcopalians often make the mistake of using "Episcopal" when then mean Episcopalian. For instance, the phrase "Episcopal priest" makes no sense as Episcopal is the adjectival form of bishop. Episcopalian priest is the proper form.

Also, The Episcopal Church is also a misnomer as there are many espicopal churches such as the Catholic and Orthodox and Lutheran Churches.129.74.228.121 01:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Non-Episcopalians make that mistake ("Episcopal / Episcopalian") more often, I think. "I am an Episcopal Priest" is actually correct, if one understands it to be shorthand for "I am a priest in the Episcopal Church." --Deaconse 04:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources???

There are tons of unsourced statements and facts given on this page that need to give citations.--Bremkus 00:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Format of article...

The format of the article is a mess. The artile used to have a much better structure and provided a lot of information. In the last few months (since I last looked at it), it seems to have become a mess. It looks more at minutiae instead of the big picture. It seems there needs to be more on general beliefs (the article uses too many specifics, i.e. an overubandance of bulleted points, and doesn't concentrate enough on generalities). Also, it seems that the history section should be merged back into the article. It seems superfluous not to be able to condense either article enough to fit it into the main page.--Bremkus 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Update request

The "recent controversies" section should be updated with information about the recent primates' meeting in Tanzania and the ultimatum sent to the Episcopal Church USA, as discussed here and here. I'd do it myself, but I'm not entirely clear on the precise details of the communique, and it's important to be precise about these things. Anyone up to the challenge? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent controversies

User 129.74.228.121 would like to change the name of the sub-heading to ""Homosexual ordination controversy and Anglican realignment". To my thinking this is just "fanning the flames" and is not neutral. "Recent controversies" is neutral. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing POV about "Homosexual ordination controversy and Anglican realignment." Which word is contrary to the truth? The two core issues at present are the ordination of gay bishops and the crossing of provincial boundaries. "Recent controversies" makes it sound like something indefinite and insignificant. This is about the future of TEC in the Anglican Communion! It deserves something more specific than "recent controversies." I can think of a whole lot of material that would fit under such a general title. Only this material fits under the title as written. Perhaps we should include material on the refusal to grant consent to Matt Lawrence or the opression of a pastor in Colorado Springs. These and many other "Recent controversies" would go well under such a heading.129.74.228.121 21:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soap box. It is an encyclopedia. This means no original research. No editorial. No opionions. "Recent controversies" is neutal. Wikipedia is not looking for the truth. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go really slow here for you. To prove that wording is POV you have to demonstrate that it somehow favors one side over the other. In this case you have to demonstrate that what is at issue is not about homosexual ordination or it is not about realignment. I dont think you can demonstrate either case. Though I would like to see you try.

If you leave it vague then the issues of the pastor in Colorado Springs, any sexual misconduct, the refusal of consent to Matt Lawrence, etc. are all on the table. If you keep it general then I will be glad to fill the page with all the applicable "recent controversies," all cited, of course!129.74.228.121 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that the recent controversies to which Wassupwestcoast alludes have to do with a lot of issues - why limit them to two? The argument, at its core, could be said to be one of ecclesiology, so why not "Ecclesiological controversies"? Or, it could be characterised as doctrinal, or pertaining to liberal versus conservative theologies, so "Recent doctrinal controversies" would be apt, too. The fact that these overarching issues have manifested themselves in certain forms of particularity is incidental, imo. After all, the current realignment debate also touches on the consecration of a woman as primate of the Episcopal Church. "Recent controversies" is a more neutral title and allows the full scope of the presenting issues - which, again I stress is largely ecclesiological - to be considered.

That said, perhaps a general title, such as "Church structure" or "Doctrine in the Episcopal Church" could be substituted, that would allow context to be provided to the discussion. My main concern is that focussing on presenting issues obscures the underlying structural, jurisdictional, and doctrinal issues at stake in the present debate. Fishhead64 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that homosexuality is incidental to the matter at hand, but I will submit to Fishhead's opinion. So now there are other issues to include such as the reliability of scripture and historic church teachings as sources for doctrine, the excusive claims of Christ for salvation. In no official recent document has WO been brought up. But, if you like, we can launch into that as well. But, please do not object to a whole panaply of issues to be included under so a sweeping rubric. I would think that Mark Lawrence should also get his due.129.74.228.121 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be the last person to object to context. If you read Anglican doctrine, it will give you some indication of what I mean when I refer to this as one presenting issue. It's one of the frustrating things about this debate: It's like Anglican schismatics just popped out of the sky one day, rather than this being the continuation of an extremely ancient (by Anglican standards) debate over the limits of jurisdiction. As for the question of doctrine, well, there is no such thing as a universal Anglican doctrine ajudicated by some international binding authority. Provinces of the Communion are masters of their own affairs - that's why they have synods and canon law, and the Anglican Communion as an entity does not. And that is why this is about ecclesiology, not homosexuality. Fishhead64 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi user 129.74.228.121, don't forget you can also investigate Anglican doctrine, Anglican views of homosexuality, Blessing of same-sex unions in Christian churches among other articles. Wikipedia has a number of articles that might be better places for you to contribute. All the same Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a sounding board for endless debates of doctrine. As for the fellow you keep mentioning, I don't know the issue but you'd best not use Wikipedia as a soapbox where living people are involved. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please point out to me in detail precisely where I have engaged in "endless debates of doctrine." Your defensiveness and knee-jerk anti-intellectualism do not become an Anglican who are usually well-educated and up for an engagement of the mind. In charity I will chalk up your behavior to the frayed nerves and oversensitivity which understandably are the mood of the moment. Still, this moodiness has no place in editing an encyclopedia which is intended to illumine rather than obfuscate the issues.129.74.228.121 01:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your argument, Fishhead, and it is a good one. Still, your argument from "polity" is the argument of one camp as opposed to the argument of the other. The article was already skewed to one POV as it spoke at length about polity but had nothing to say about the doctrinal issues. I do not have a dog in this race as I am not an Anglican. My point was to add balance to a one-sided article that was fairly well avoiding the doctrinal issues by preventing the mention of Lambeth 1.10. It is not overboad to mention this short passage. To do a full analysis of scriptural text would be out of the question here. But to mention the conflited passage?

I agree. This is a debate about polity, sure. But it is also a debate about doctrine. One side emphasizes the one and the other side the other. This is a baby you cant split in half.129.74.228.121 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 129.74.228.121, sorry to 'cause stress. I've mis-read your intentions. But your statement that you are not an Anglican - to me - seems odd because your writings reflect a personal investment in an on-going Anglican debate. For an outsider to be so affected has caught me off guard. So why are you so interested in the esoteric goings on of Episcopalians? Still, Wikipedia is owned by no one. And this - me - defensive, knee-jerk, philistine will hone a thick skin! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am a theo-nerd by nature. Besides, I have cousins who are TEC members and are on opposite sides of the debate. They have kind of drawn me in. I do feel for both sides and cannot imagine what it would be like to be in such termoil.

Regarding the Lambeth reference. It is essential to the discussion here and provides the context for mentioning To Set Our Hope on Christ. It does not make sense to reference one without the other.129.74.228.121 05:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that KJS is controversial primarily because she is a woman. I have seen some of the conservative blogs and it doesnt come up nearly as much as the gay/scripture discussion. You have to remember that the conservatives in TEC are mostly Evangelicals. Evangelicals do not have problems with WO generally. These folks are the ones who have remained in TEC after all. Those most opposed to WO were conservative AngloCatholics and basically they all left TEC in the 70's and 80's. Among Africans and Asians her being a woman is probably problematic. But, this is an article on TEC, not the AC. I have not found any citations on this (it really has not come up in any articles I have read on the subject). I do think that her being a woman is part of what makes many liberals and women in TEC proud of her. But, that does not mean that that is what conservatives most oppose about her. I think her weasely answers about Christ's necessity for salvation drive Evangelicals most crazy. Though, as a Catholic myself, her views on this are about the same as mine (though as Catholics we use more specific language to describe what she struggles to get out).

Anyway, I do want to have peace with you. I just think both sides deserve a fair shake. In fact, "To Set Our Hope in Christ" really deserves a quote here.129.74.228.121 06:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I did assert that this was about doctrine, but the doctrine is ecclesiological, since there is no Anglican doctrine pertaining to the blessing of same sex unions OR the interpretation of scripture, save Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, meant as a guidepost. My point is that this is the latest manifestation of an ecclesiological argument reaching back to the origins of Anglicanism. After all, since when did Anglicans agree on a method of interpreting scripture? They certainly haven't agreed on sexual ethics since the grand contraception debates of the late 1800s. As a non-Anglican, it may be edifying for you to read Anglican doctrine and the main pages it cites there before adding what could be helpful context to the article. Thank you for your efforts, btw! Fishhead64 07:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 129.74.228.121, just a few comments. You are painting with a very broad brush when you downplay the Ordination of women issue. This has been a stumbling block for 30 years. In many ways, the gay issue is just in its infancy. Of course, we haven't even entered the nastiness in the prayer book debates which continue unabated. Also, your sweeping statements regarding evangelicals - a very non-Anglican term - and Anglo-Catholics don't sit well with me. On a humorous note,the sweeping generalization that the Anglo-Catholics "basically they all left TEC in the 70's and 80's" - in the land of cliche and over-simplification - would lead one to conclude that the gay issue also left. For whatever reason, in vulgar cliche gay and Anglo-Catholic are linked. On many levels, this is nonsense. Historically, the TEC has been low-church and in recent (last 30) years has moved more broad church. A more plausible sweeping generalization is to note that there is a linkage between low church Anglican, the refusal to consider the ordination of woman, a fixation on the Book of Common Prayer, a fixation on Morning Prayer as the primary service, and the gay issue. I've used a very coarse and vulgar brush and yet I think the picture produced would be more true. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 129.74.228.121, I've re-arranged the Recent Controversies section to make it flow better. I've left your stuff in but did delete a problematic word and short phrase. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I am fine with the way it reads now and I see how you reported Lambeth as "one side." That works. We could have saved much wear and tear on both of us if you had engaged in such constructive editing from the beginning rather than simply do wholesale reverts of cited and relevant material.129.74.228.121 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware that many of those advocating for inclusiveness are of the Anglo-Catholic brand of Anglicanism. If you read closely, you will notice that I said "conservative" Anglo-Catholics mostly left in the 70's and 80's. By that I meant the 1928 BCP crowd. Where I come from, low church conservative Anglicans are proud of the moniker "evangelical." The term is also in wide use in the CofE. It is a brand of shame only among TEC liberals. I am sure that you are a member of TEC or an Anglican of some variety, but you seem to run in rather limited circles. Much of what divides TEC and the AC in general is a wide gap among the various theological wings which is often manifest by very different uses of the English language.129.74.228.121 14:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

He did say "conservative Anglo-Catholics." It's interesting how commonly "Anglo-Catholics" are thought of as specifically conservative. It's probably SOMETIMES true, but in my (admittedly provincial) New York City experience, they are quite liberal. For instance, St. Mary the Virgin in Times Square, which is synonymous with Anglo-Catholicism (they started Anglo-Catholicism and are called "the cathedral of Anglo-Catholicism,") is quite liberal, and has made it clear where they stand in this debate. The same is true of Holy Cross monastery, the first Episcopal monastery, and the creators of St. Augustine's Prayer Book, which Anglo-Catholics swear by. Carlo 14:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

My comment above crossed 129's (and how about a name, 129, even if you don't want to register?). He's right about the 1928 book, but I've never understood that, since I find the 1928 book VERY Protestant. Carlo 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the High Church/Broad Church/Low Church divide is pretty much orthogonal to the Conservative/Moderate/Liberal divide. You get all three types among all three types. And I know what you mean about St. Mary's on Time Square, Carlo; I went there a few times in the early '90s. If they weren't accepting of gay men, they'd hardly have any congregation left. —Angr 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Average Sunday Attendance

Hi 129.74.228.121, I've only removed the editorial comment. But I have a bigger question. Why is Average Sunday Attendance important in this article? There are two problems: first, lack of context. What are the figures like for other mainline denominations? Second, nobody takes attendance at a TEC church. Unlike some denominations, there is no strict membership requirement. Of course, you have to be baptized but membership is not determined through registeration. You can attend a TEC church for several years and not be on its rolls. In other words, attendance numbers in the TEC are muddy because of a large cloud of self-identified Episcopalians who sometimes show up and regulars who never register. And to repeat myself, there is no head count: no turn-stile at the door. Someone after a service might note "about 30" attended: these records can be mighty sloppy! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Membership numbers are based on registration which is not required for attendance, of course. ASA is reported by each parish annually based on counts taken several times a year. Yes, both are imprecise, but for comparative purposes over the span of years, they accurately reflect trends. You should read more on the subject. The studies are available on the internet and referenced in the article. The context is an article on TEC in which various membership figures and claims have been made. For instance, the claim that membership has remained flat is obviously a gloss and should be removed. But as other editors seem hypersensitive to any materials I remove, I have left the contradiction in place.

Your question may be really about having such statistics at all. I realize that such declines being reported can make one uncomfortable, but as this is an encyclopedia, it should not read like propaganda only reporting on topics that present TEC in its preferred positive light. You will notice that many have gone out of their way to add uncomfortable material to the Catholic Church page. As long as it is cited and accurate and relevant, the material stays.129.74.228.121 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi 129.74.228.121. You seem to be new to WP 'cause " as long as it is cited and accurate and relevant, the material stays" aint't true. WP is all about persistence and nasty power struggles. Truth, accuracy, relevance and verifiability are all for the real world. Joking: with the recent WP Controversy (with a capital C) I think not! As for the stats question, I'm quite familiar with the issue. And choosing Average Sunday Attendance as a measure is not exactly reliable. Religion and stats is - to say the least - quite a quagmire. For example, the number who are in inter-communion between the Anglican and Catholic churches (at a personal level) is hard to measure and yet must be fairly high. Other stats: retention rate, baptism (child and adult) rates and Sunday offeratory rates? Anyway, religion is not a numbers game or popularity contest. Surely, no one chooses their belief like a bad episode of American Idol? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 16:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea about a WP Controversy. What's that?129.74.228.121 16:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi User:129.74.228.121, for best coverage of the affair it is best to go to the horses mouth. See The New Yorker On the Internet, nobody knows you're a 24 year-old with no advanced degrees. The story is being picked up in the real world media. So even at the top of WP there is rot! Not good. If you read the discussion boards, some are taking Wiki breaks over this[1]. Anyway, it's off topic but points to a big problem blowing up for poor WP. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mother of world Anglicanism"

Sorry for the little temporary removal there. I was just passing through from a contributions list, it looked like some kind of bizarre English national pride statement. I then had a quick scan through the article, and saw the link to Anglicanism, and noticed that I was initially wrong, and undid myself. Sorry for the mix-up. --Dreaded Walrus 08:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Source Issues

I realise that this is a somewhat controversial topic I am touching on here but as an English Protestant some of the claims made by the article are somewhat hard to believe, particularly that about increasing mainline membership, but what really concerns me is the fact that these claims are backed up by articles or essays from the official Episcopal Church website, Episcopal Church-sponsored research, etc. Are these sources really valid as points of reference? Madmatt52 22:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with raising the issue, but who else is doing the counting? There is no equivalent to the Nielsen Ratings. There is census data but such data are confusing: they report the numbers of self-identified Episcopalians. There is the Pew Research Centre but they aren't keeping detailed statistics on Episcopalians. They do independent polling. Gallup also does independent polling of religious issues, for example this year-old Gallup report:(April 14, 2006) Mormons, Evangelical Protestants, Baptists Top Church Attendance List - Jews and Episcopalians least likely to attend on regular basis. There are other organizations that do polling. But note that these are not head counts. Any organization that is reporting head counts is almost certainly relying on self-reporting. As for head counts, when it comes to the numbers of believers, the whole issues is very muddied. There are numerous issues such as turn-over rates, short and long term retention, inter-communion between denominations, 'vacations' from attendance and expectations of attendance. Plus, the faithful will always counter by saying that counting heads is irrelevant. To the faithful the entire subject is perfectly dichotomous: either the correct path has been chosen or it hasn't. This is a long winded way of saying - short of an Episcopalian conspiracy - using TEC numbers is a reliable source and wouldn't violate the WP Attribution policy. Put it another way, we rely on NASA sources for NASA statistics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Major differences

The article says: "The Episcopal Church is a Protestant church, with major differences from Roman Catholicism, including the use of the Book of Common Prayer (see below) and the ordination of women and non-celibate men to the priesthood."

I am "what"-tagging this, as clearly the passage doesn't describe major differences (how about theology) but wallows in minor things (there are married priests in the Catholic Church, though few) and outright trivialities (the Book of Common Prayer). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Wallows in minor things" makes me smile. Perhaps these things are minor and trivial but they are 'things' that prevent the inter-communion between the Catholic Church and the TEC. There is almost no theological difference at all. Perhaps the authority of the pope should be added to the list? Clarifying the list is actually difficult because the list of differences does look silly and trivial. And yet the barrier is real and has been for 500 years! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure these things are issues, but inter-communion is probably more hampered by matters of eucharistic theology and the issue of valid orders (quite apart from the schism) but when the article speaks about "major differences" I don't expect priestly celibacy or different prayer books to occur. The Pope certainly is a major difference, as well as all these thing going back to the Reformation.

PS. Could you please educate me about the reasoning behind the wording in the intro. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "different prayer books". The Book of Common Prayer is the cornerstone of all Anglican churches, and is a uniquely Anglican concept. Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants have anything like it. It is indeed a major difference from other denominations. And "major differences" does not imply "impediments to intercommunion" anyway. —Angr 13:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Angr, it wasn't me that brough up inter-communion, and I have already stated that celibacy and BoCP are no issue in this regard. The BoCP might be something special but I think any traditional denomination has some kind of a prayer book. The RCC has the Missal (forgetting the liturgy reform issues for a moment). And if the BoCP is so uniquely Anglican, why is it cited as a major difference to the Catholic Church, the one that comes closest to having a BoCP of her own? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the reasoning behind the wording in the intro: the TEC is not a 'branch' of the Anglican Communion but an autonomous Province: that is, the TEC is the sole representative. For a crude analogy, an insurance agent at a branch office would be an actual employee of an insurance company. However, an agent who is not an employee but indepent and represents the interests of the insurance company is rightly described as a representative of the insurance company. Yes, the jargon is muddy but in terms of the Anglican Communion there is no authority coming from the Anglican Communion to the TEC as if it were a branch. The TEC is the representative of the Anglican Communion in the U.S. The TEC is the 'sole' representative because under canon law the TEC has geographic monopoly to the U.S.: just as an insurance agent would be the sole representative of an insurance company in a specific territory There is a reference in the intro sentence. As for 'major' differences, maybe someone could parse Anglican doctrine and Catholic doctrine and come up with a list. I agree that the section needs much improvement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about the "branch" wording but IMHO the "sole representative" wording suffers from the same problems (ECUSA as an outpost of the AC) and is even worse, given the breadth of meaning of the word branch. Your "crude analogy" makes this even clearer. Despite all its problems, this is a church and not some business franchise. Why not define ECUSA as per what it is and not as some administrative franchise of the AC? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just say the ECUSA "is the autonomous Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States"? (At least until October 1, when it might well not be that anymore.) —Angr 10:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's better but still leaves the focus on the international association (and autonomy might be a bit fuzzy). I am neither an Anglican nor a US-Episcopalian so I cannot say how an internal definition would look like. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I like user Angr's definition - ECUSA "is the autonomous Province of the Anglican Communion in the United States" - the best. I notice that user Str1977 is confused by this relationship. Fortunately, Anglican's have never been so tough minded as - say - McDonals's and come down like a legal ton of bricks on those churches who use the name Anglican or Episcopal but are not within the Anglican Communion. In the U.S., these extra-mural Anglican churches have formed over the past couple of centuries from open schism and others are daughter churches of the original leavers. I gather some of these extra-mural Anglican churches formed de novo. Recently, I read an interesting news report "Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans: How Do We Get There From Here?" which provided some interesting background reading about attempts at uniting a centuries worth of extra-mural Anglican groups. The conference was "The Affirmation of St. Louis: Seeking a Path to Reconciliation and Unity" held at All Saints Episcopal Church, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania September 30-October 1, 2005. Anyway, TEC has the unique and historical relationship in being connected formally and legally to the Anglican Communion as an autonomous Province. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you like it best, and I like best (since I wrote it), I've changed it. Str1977, is that okay with you? —Angr 12:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs section

Am I the only editor that feels this is redundant, given Anglicanism, Anglican doctrine, and Anglican Communion? The impression left is that this particular province of the Anglican Communion is somehow exceptional in some way. I'm for either jettisoning it entirely, or reducing it to a short paragraph, with abundant links to relevant articles on Anglican theology. Thoughts? fishhead64 19:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that almost everything in that section belongs in a more general discussion of Anglican beliefs and practices. —Angr 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the section could be reduced to a few see alsos. A straw poll at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism didn't seem to lead to a conclusion about a similar problem. User Fishhead64 proposed a straw poll on a standard format for all Provincial articles:

1. History
2. Membership (demographics, size, etc.)
3. Structure (or Organization)
4. Worship and liturgy
5. Doctrine and practice (kind of interchangeable in Anglicanism!)
   1. Social issues
   2. Ecumenical relations
   3. (Other subheadings)
6. References
7. See also
8. External links

Should Worship and liturgy and Doctine and practice be reduced and wikified, or expanded as a compare and contrast section? That is: all generally applicable material at Anglicanism, Anglican doctrine,etc. and only departures and local quirks mentioned in the Provincial articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That could work, though it would be a major effort to do so for all provinces :) It does raise the question as to whether this article is to be as a subset, or part of, the overall Anglican "system" of articles, or to be a standalone.

As the editor who put in the Theology section, I did so because the beliefs and practices section focused on:

• Notes on BCP and worship styles that made sense only to other Anglicans.
• Ordination of women and gays.

...which meant friends who went to the article looking for information to help put various news stories in context got no useful information. Perhaps IF links to Anglicanism or Anglican doctrine had existed they would have found what they were looking for.... JenKilmer 17:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I was bold and cut out a few sections and pasted them into the Anglicanism article. They look better there. Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 02:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Extra-mural"

In a dozen years of working in the Episcopal Church, I never heard the term "extra-mural." It's been used in this article to replace "Continuing Churches," a term I have heard, among other uses. Shouldn't an encyclopedia article use terms that will be readily understood? InkQuill 04:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

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 05:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempts to eliminate accurate reporting of membership statistics

Several editors in recent months have repeatedly removed the most accurate and up to date membership statistics which happen to show a decline. These are figures published by TEC itself! How can WP go on reporting old statistics as if they were current and systematically obscure official information? This is ridiculous!129.74.165.187 17:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Remember this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about the TEC and not a critique. According to Wikipedia policy a good article is broad in its coverage, focused without going into unnecessary details, and written from a neutral point of view. The membership statistics are an unnecessary detail. The overall membership and the simple statement that membership is flat adequately reflects the TEC and the level of numerical detail needed to describe the TEC. We don't need to state that there are 2,284,233 baptized members: 2.2 million is adequate. The precision of these statistics isn't better than +/- 10 percentage points. Yes, the statistics are indeed published by the TEC. The source isn't in doubt. It is simply too much detail. For example, between 2004 and 2003, "Active Baptized Members" declined 1.59% "Communicants in Good Standing" declined 1.67%, and "Average Sunday Attendance" declined 3.31%. And that is just a sample of all the statistics prepared by the TEC. How to interpret three similar numbers? How to contrast these statistics with the general demographic trends within the U.S. and within U.S. churches. The statement that thhe numbers are flat is adequate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you go on Cheersing me, let me reply. This problem is that membership figure ARE NOT FLAT. This was true once upon a time. However, the most recent figures are showing a notable decline. What is wrong with reporting what TEC itself reports: that there is a notable decline. If the facts reported are too much detail, admittedly, they can be reported in footnotes. As for interpretation, by comparison evangelicals are still growing as is the total US population. If the US were shrinking, you would have a point. There is no one who would say that TEC membership is now flat. That was true in 2002. It is cherrypicking and misleading to use 2002 figures when 2004 are available. WP is about reporting facts, not fuzzy impressions which suit its authors. 129.74.165.15 15:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the controversial text to one single sentence which is accurate and suported by two footnotes. This really cant be terribly objectionable:

"However, substantial declines in both membership [8] and average Sunday attendance [9] since 2002 have been reported in the official statistics of the Episcopal Church."129.74.165.15 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What? -1.59% between 2004 and 2003 is a "substantial" decline. I think not. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An analysis of the most recent numbers does not support the idea of a substantial decline. From "The Christian Century" article of Nov 2006 that was provided by IP editor User:129.74.165.15 -see [2]- the figure given for active membership is 2,205,376. This is stated as being a "net loss of nearly 115,000 members over the past three years. To quote the article:

On the three-year loss of 115,000 members, James B. Lemler, Episcopal director of mission, said in an interview that the totals "are not more than we expected." Lemler also said that officials were heartened that average Sunday attendance in 2005 did not decline as it did in the previous two years. The average Sunday worship attendance in 2005 was 787,000 people, down only 8,500.

So the article itself suggests things have flattened out. But more to the point, TEC's most recent membership stats as of Jan 2007 of 2005 parochial reports found here [3] give "total active baptized members" of 2,369,477. The difference of 2,369,477 - 2,205,376 = 164,101 which is about 50 000 greater than the loss between 2005 and 2002. What does this mean? Well, I'll skip Disraeli - "lies, damned lies, and statistics" - and say I dislike church statistics because a) too often the numbers are used to clobber the opposition, and b) the bean counting of church members is imprecise. An example of this bean counter clobbering and counter clobbering can be found in the analysis prepared by the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network - see [4] - and countered by a group called Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh - see [5]. I think we should keep the membership issue to a minimum. The latest number do suggest that the numbers are flat. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced statement

I'm removing the following statement as it has been tagged as needing a source since April:

Every Eucharist or Holy Communion service must use real wine, not water or grape juice, for the sacrament to be valid. Those wishing for whatever reason to avoid alcohol are free to decline the cup.

If anyone can find a source for this, feel free to re-add it. —Angr 17:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)