Talk:Anglican Communion Network
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Anglican Communion Network 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. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:
|
|||
[edit] Neutrality
I agree with previous authors that this article doesn't exhibit a properly neutral point of view - rather, it tends to (in my opinion) be pro-ACN. I am going to flag the article with a check pov; hopefully this will draw some further user thoughts and feedback on the issue.
Most of the article is fine; however, remarks in the "Origins" section are slanted toward the network, especially in the selective use of quotes of the presiding bishop, which are without citations.
Sibleydc 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This article was not written with a NPOV. Slight modification was made to assert that, while members of the ACN believe that it will succeed ECUSA after Lambeth 2008, that this is not necessarily so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brkarekinm (talk • contribs) 03:32, September 7, 2006.
- The role and the perception of the ACN seem to be changing rapidly, so I added a 'current events' banner.
- Due to the rapid change and strong opinions, this article needs good fact-checking (WP:VERIFY) and references (WP:CITE) even more than most. I added the Template:Not verified banner, to alert those who have added facts to go back and check them. The phrases that concern me most are:
- Most of these diocese and parishes are in the process of leaving
- embryonic autonomous province
- recognised as such by a signiicant majority
- have de facto left ECUSA
- However, other phrases will concern other readers and editors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- The article "Following the Money", by Jim Naughton is a source not affiliated with the Anglican Communion Network that comments on it and other groups sympathetic to the Network. Here is the link: http://www.edow.org/follow/ ; see part II especially. Athough it is not NPOV, it does have sources and would be a starting point for someone editing this article who wanted to represent fairly both the views of the Anglican Communion Network and its critics.
-
- JoanR 20:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, JoanR.
In the meantime, before the following edits are added backwhoever chooses to restore the following edits into the article in a neutral manner, please provide specific citations for them:
- Most of these diocese and parishes are in the process of leaving the Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA)
- the network is an embryonic autonomous province of the Anglican Communion, and is recognised as such by a signiicant majority of Anglicans worldwide (although, technically a minority of provinces, and not yet by the formal institutions of the communion).
- , and as such, have de facto left ECUSA.
- Fourteen Anglican primates from the developing world, representing over half of the world's Anglicans, have officially endorsed the creation of the ACN. Many of these primates have expressed concern over the recent actions of ECUSA, and most have broken communion with ECUSA and recognised the Network in its place.
- members of the ACN hope and work actively to ensure that it's organization will replace ECUSA after the next Lambeth conference in 2008, following on from full recognition by the Global South Primates conference in 2006.
I suspect most of these are true, and they seem to be widely believed. However it is important to make clear to readers the distinction between
- the hopes and intentions of individual leaders and
- the actions and stated purposes of an organisation.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- Another piece that doesn't sound neutral and is not verifiable,
- Network membership and decision-making is not open and democratic. While the Episcopal Church lists the rosters, meeting information, and minutes of all sixty-six Committees, Commissions and Agencies of General Convention, no such information is available on the Network’s governance.
- What notable person complained of this? When? Did they write to the ACN and ask for documents? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I waited two weeks for the author of this to provide a source:
-
-
- After the ECUSA's 2006 General Convention, some Bishops, both within the Church and from the Anglican Communion, suggested that the Anglican Communion Network should be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Anglican Consultative Council as the orthodox expression of Anglicanism within the United States.[verification needed]
- None was forthcoming, so I removed it. Which bishops? Says who? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Someone doctored the logo to include the Confederate Flag. This is highly offensive. I hope someone more skilled than I in using Wikipedia will change it. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.4.24 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 October 2007
-
- I hope the church can avoid a schism and things like this don't help. I removed the offensive logo and will see what else I can do to help the POV dispute. -- SECisek 01:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge Anglican realignment to this article?
EastmeetsWest (talk · contribs) has created a separate article Anglican realignment listing ten dioceses that "all belong to the Anglican Communion Network." It is not clear why that info should be in a separate article. I thus propose merging it to here.
In my view, a separate article "Anglican realignment" would only be justified as a history of the term, (1) citing neutral sources to describe where it was first used (by X in a speech or memo to Y, as reported by Z, etc.) and who subsequently adopted the wording, etc. And then (2) referring the reader to the separate articles on the groupings to whom the term applies—this article about the ACN, the article on the American Anglican Council, plus other groups if there are such.
There is also no need to be coy about the fact that the core issue is homosexuality. Saying "... place themselves under the jurisdiction of Anglican Primates of other countries with whom they are closer in theology and practice" and leaving it at that seems oddly vague about what the conflict is all about. -- IslandGyrl 03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- Islandgyrl, I am not trying to be coy on this topic. In fact, I dont have a horse in this race. I am a sideline and fascinated observer. As a former parishioner of Truro who was and is a Ukrainian Catholic, I am trying to be objective. It is clear to me that the fissures in the Anglican Communion predate the Gene Robinson case. Truro Church, for example, is very evangelical with a strong fundamentalist strain and has led a 25 year campaign to change the ECUSA's teaching on abortion. Yes, the Robinson affair is the proximate cause of the break, but it was only the last straw in a long series of issues.
- As for realignment and the ACN, they are closely related, but not the same thing as I see it. The realignment article needs a lot of work but ought to identify the various layers of dissent among Anglicans over the past 100+ years (in order to include REC which has now become a player in the movement). As I see it, realignment is an umbrella topic of which the ACN is a player. While the term realignment is of recent popularity, it describes a century and a half of currents and undercurrents and now includes Anglicans not presently in the Anglican Communion.
- If I am being fuzzy-headed about any of this, please let me know. I am not trying to offend or muddy any issues but rather address some major movements which have not been given coherent treatment thus far on WP in my opinion.
EastmeetsWest 15:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
~merging with other pov comments, see above..
[edit] "Traditional," "orthodox"
To claim that a belief in biblical infallibility or certain views on sexual morality is "traditional" or "orthodox," as the article claimed, is a point of view. A quick scan of Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, delineating the interpretation of scripture, does not suggest that scripture is infallible - a claim explicitly rejected by Richard Hooker himself, incidentally; and orthodoxy or tradition with respect to ethical questions depends on whether one is looking at them as discrete issues, or in terms of doctrinal methodology. An argument could be made (and often is) that the blessing of same-sex unions or ordination/consecration of non-celibate individuals is entirely consistent with traditional, orthodox, Anglican doctrinal development. fishhead64 (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
