Talk:Anglican realignment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Anglican realignment is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | ||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
| Anglicanism WikiProject |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Oops, sorry, I see the article still growing
I will refrain from retagging for a while since I see the original editor is expanding the article and addressing my concerns. -- IslandGyrl 04:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] theologically "conservative" to theologically "biblical"
User 66.32.14.214 made the edit theologically "conservative" to theologically "biblical". This is un-helpful in the debate as both sides centre their respective arguments from "biblical" sources and perspectives. Conservative seems to me to better describe the anglican realignment position as it is commomly understood: conservative does carry quite a bit of baggage though so perhaps there is an even better word that does not denigrate either side. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that "conservative" describes the situation quite well, and believe also that it does not denigrate either side - it is merely a neutral term used to describe the situation. (This comment was made by a user who is proud to be a theological conservative. :-D ) --Tim4christ17 talk 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Realignment only within ECUSA?
Does Anglican realignment also affect Canada or other Anglican provinces?--Bhuck 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Not at this time. Realignment remains an American phenomenon.129.74.228.121 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History section
This section is problematic in that none of the examples cited are actually instances of realignment. Conflict, yes. Departures from the Communion, yes. Organizations within the Communion, yes. But, not one of these is an example of realignment as defined in the article which is alternative primatial oversight. So, this needs to be re-written or moved down in the article as it blurrs the topic for the reader before actually arriving at a discussion of the present realignment.129.74.228.121 16:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed merger of Homosexual ordination and realignment of the Communion to Anglican realignment
The home for this info is best here to avoid repetition. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- There has been no interest at all for 48 hours so assume that the proposal is uncontroversial. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC
I disagree. The present situation in the Anglican Communion is essential to understanding the Communion. A summarizing section is indispensable with a reference to the main article. Why is there such passion to shunt off this material from principal articles? Look at the Catholic Church page and you will see all kinds of information that is uncomfortable but needs to be there. One does not have a right to present their own rosy version of a topic. That material stays there.129.74.165.42 03:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History Section
Okay, I am going to ask you all nicely to actually discuss major changes to this article here on the talk page. It seems that if anyone were interested in this topic it would be quite difficult to find info. on it here on WP. First, while "Realignment" is probably the best article title and is used in some inner circles, there is no easily identifiable name to look under for this topic. The papers use schism a lot, but I dont think that is acurate if some parishes are moving from one province to another. The best term for this kind of movement is realignment. But most readers wont know that and will be looking at either the TEC page or the Anglican Communion page. Recent editing efforts have had the effect of obscuring any information about the subject on these pages. Most readers know the topic has something to do with ordination of gay bishops and shism. At TEC, the heading has been changed to "Recent controversies," which is a rediculously obscuring title and is possibly the most unhelpful title one could conjure up. Then on the Anglican Communion page the topic has been removed entirely. This is very problematic in that someone looking there would find no hint of information on this topic.
The current crisis is not a sideshow in the Anglican Communion but is likely the most important development since the Oxford Movement. So, please let's stop trying to bury this topic.
Lastly, if one does finally get to this page there is a huge "history" section which brings in so much information that it again has the effect of obscuring what is currently at issue. I am not opposed to all this background, but the article is principally about the events of 2003 to the present. It also ought to highlight the centrality of the gay bishop issue in the current crisis. The Communique essentially only addressed 3 topics:
1. New Primatial Vicar 2. Hiatus on new gay bishops 3. Hiatus on Same-sex union blessings.
This material needs to be in the headings if only in subheadings.
So my question is why the impulse to bury the facts? Please. Please. Please cooperate in editing these articles so that people who want to know what is going on can find the material quickly and well presented along with all the context they want. But too much "context" makes for a confusing and difficult article to wade through.
129.74.165.42 04:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- As the principal author of the History section, I feel the need to pop in from my Wikibreak to say a word in its defence.
- Anglican realignment is not about events since 2003. Anglican realignment has been a fact of life since the Church of England declared its autonomy from the authority of foreign bishops. The fact that the current debate involves the re-insertion of the authority of foreign bishops into independent provinces is truly ironic, but it is scarcely novel.
- It is strange to me to read objections to "too much context" on such a complex issue, with such a long history. I never thought comprehensiveness was a shortcoming; or that providing the background to current events somehow constitutes their burial. In an earlier colloquoy with Wassupwestcoast, you acknowledged the helpfulness of context, and when it is provided you complain that the article should be - well, a series of news briefs, one supposes, divorced from the reality of Anglican doctrine, history, and ecclesiology.
- To my thinking, that approach doesn't make an encyclopedia. It makes an almanac. Fishhead64 06:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Objective POV
I would like to work together with some of you editors on a presentation of the issues in a more objective fashion. Could we try to have some subsections which outline each "sides" point of view. I hate "liberal" and "conservative" when referring to religious topics, "fundamentalist" is worse. But for lack of better terms at the moment could we outline each point of view briefly? I will give it a try and let me know what you think.
"Liberal"
- Modern scripture scholarship applied to a variety of modern issues:
- WO
- Inclusion of LGBT
- Provincial autonomy extends to matters of doctrinal development.
"Conservative"
- Belief in the immutability of doctrine
- Divided over WO both in TEC and the AC
- Disapproving of SSB and Ordination of LGB bishops
- Belief that Provincial autonomy does not extend to changes in doctrine.
Present Position of the Anglican Communion: Windsor and Communique
- Current teaching of the AC is Lambeth 1998 1.10, though opinion vary widely throughout the communion and the teaching is subject to change at any future Lambeth Conference.
- The AC does not recognize as legitimate the crossing of Provincial boundaries.
Folks, I am not trying to disrespect your work here, but we have to keep the reader in mind. This is a hot topic these days and WP ought to make good information readily available.129.74.165.42 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hi user 129.74.165.42, where were you in February when Anglican realignment was the Anglican project of the month? No one who edits and is interested in Anglicanism is ignoring this issue. But please keep it in perspective. It is a bit exteme to say that this issue is "likely the most important development since the Oxford Movement." Perhaps you have forgotten the entire Ordination of women debate - a debate still on-going and which also can quite easily lead to schism. And, then there are the esoteric prayer book debates and so on. Anglicanism has been 500 years of outrage and door slamming :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I can live with this point. Why have you ignored all of the stated above and arbitrarily reverted edits withouth discussion on the talk page. That is hostile.129.74.165.42 13:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ordination of women and Bishop Schori
The issue of Bishop's Schori's gender and the ordination of women is far more central to the Anglican realignment debate than several editors seem to think. If Bishop Robinson were suddenly to say "this gay thing was a fun lark while it lasted but I think I'll go straight now", the raison d'etre for Anglican realignment would not disappear. The issues are bigger than a single gay bishop. And, one of those issues is 30 years old. Much of the Anglican Communion sees the ordination of a female bishop a greater stumbling block because gender can not be changed. The U.S., U.K, Canada and New Zealand (as far as I know) are the only Provinces where a bishop may be a woman. Many of the Provinces who see a gay bishop as anathema, don't see a woman bishop as a lesser problem.
One of the odd things about the Anglican realignment movement are some non-traditional parishes trying to align themselves with conservative Provinces. My jaw dropped when I recently read in The Seattle Times about two dissident parishes:
In Washington state, one other parish — St. Charles in Poulsbo — also has aligned with the same Brazilian bishop as St. Stephen's. They affiliated with the Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti, who, unlike some other conservative bishops, was willing to take on those parishes headed by a woman — as St. Stephen's was at the time — or by a divorced and remarried man — as St. Charles is.
Thirty years ago, a female priest or a divorced (and re-married !) priest would have been anathema in ECUSA. Impossible and scandalous if known. I can not think of a better example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Of course, it is not surprising such parishes would find it difficult to affliate with a conservative Province.
Another Seattle Times article also reports on the significance of the woman priest debate within the recent votes in Virginia.
Parishioners there weren't upset only by Bishop Peter James Lee's vote in 2003 to accept an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire; many of the members still object to female priests and the new female bishop who leads the U.S. church.
The old debates linger. Gender is still a big issue to some in ECUSA. And, those who don't understand the history of the Episcopalian/Anglican church are going to realign themselves right out of the Communion. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- In an Anglo-catholic blog, there is an interesting analysis about women's ordination, the AMiA and the Anglican realignment movement. Very much written from an Anglo-catholic perspective but revealing on the internal tensions within the Anglican realignment movement itself.
- The blog article is AMiA: A Backdoor Entrance for Women's 'Ordination'?. The blog article was posted Sunday, January 28, 2007. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unity amongst disunity
This news report Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans: How Do We Get There From Here? provides 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.
Christian history, Ousley continued, is full of splits—“some necessary, some benign, some sinful.” Likewise, while most of the splits undertaken by groups of orthodox Anglicans since 1976 have been regarded by those who effected them as necessary to the integrity of the Gospel, he said, some of them were rooted instead in "some form of human selfishness,” e.g., personality conflicts or objections to leadership style, “and are rightly termed `schism'". Complicating matters, Ousley noted, is that orthodox Anglicans might in a few cases disagree as to which are substantive or non-substantive issues, for instance the ordination of women deacons, or whether seeking reunion with Rome is a high priority.
The post-1976 Continuing Church has "split various times," Ousley noted. Additionally, others who left ECUSA since 1976 have formed separate bodies. "While that is not exactly `splitting it still contributes to the current state of disunity," he said.PDF version of Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans:How Do We Get There From Here?
Note: Ousley is described in the same article as "Rev. David Ousley, rector for 22 years of St. James the Less, Philadelphia, an Episcopal-turned-independent congregation (which now awaits an appellate court decision on whether or not it will lose its property to Bishop Bennison)".PDF version of Unity Among Orthodox Anglicans: How Do We Get There From Here?
The conference mostly focussed on trying to unite the Anglo-catholic extra-mural Anglican churches but they did include the recent Anglican realignment movement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 18:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Episcopal Diocese of Olympia
That St. Stephen's Anglican Church, Oak Harbor and St. Charles Anglican Church, Poulsbo" are now affliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas seems likely to be true. But, I can't verify it. St. Charles, Poulsbo is very coy about its affliation. You have to hover your cursor over the ACC coat of arms on the home page to be informed that it is a "Member of the AAC". No other statements of affiliation appear on its website. St.Stephen's website is "temporarily out of service". At the AAC website, under Non-ECUSA Affiliated Parishes it identifies both parishes as being affiliated with the "Diocese of Recife (Brazil)". I can not find an explicit statement by either parish or diocese about membership. Are they orphans? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I've found an AAC Press Release datelined December 06, 2005: "Recife Creates "North-American Archdeaconry" at its Synod". So the two parishes are affiliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas. But, I've now learned more complications in this Anglican realignment thing. The Diocese of Recife in Brazil is a part of the Province of Brazil and whose bishop is the Rt. Rev. Sebastião Gameleira. But, the former bishop of the Diocese of Recife in Brazil - Rt. Rev. Robinson Cavalcanti - left the Province of Brazil and became affiliated with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of the Americas and formed the parallel "Anglican Diocese of Recife” which is not the same thing as the Diocese of Recife. So confusing. But, I'm learning. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
