Talk:Church of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church of England is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

England Portal

This article is supported by WikiProject England, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to articles relating to England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article associated with this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Anglicanism Portal

Church of England 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.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

[edit] Supreme Governor

Who was Supreme Governor of the Church of England during the Commonwealth?

I think it was disestablished. Assuming the CofE was Royalist (a complete hunch), then I'd reckon they would recognise Charles II. Timrollpickering 07:54, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Nope. The Church of England was turned Presbyterian, and eventually congregationalist, during the Civil War. But it was still the established Church of England. I'd say it's accurate to say there was no Supreme Governor at this time. john 16:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure or can we cite that? c.f.: Supreme Governor -- SECisek 20:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Established' Church

This article is remiss in its largely ignoring the many legal aspects of this Church being 'Established'. There are legal and constitutional issues to be presented. I suggest these sources as starting point:

- Some notes on the Church of England and "Establishment" http://ubh.tripod.com/whist/chhist/ce-est1.htm

- The Church of England - Legal http://www.churchsociety.org/issues_new/church/legal/iss_church_legal_intro.asp Extramural —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extramural (talk • contribs) 20:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of England in Wales

The article on the Church of England states that it is the established church not only in England but the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but omits the far more significant country of Wales, where it is the dominant church (indeed the present Archbishop of Canterbury is Welsh). Furthermore, the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England is the heir to the throne, i.e. the Prince of Wales.

The Church in Wales is not the established Church of Wales - Welsh disestablishment occurred early in the last century, i believe. Something like 90% of the Welsh were of dissenting churches at that time - I can't imagine the status of the formerly established church has changed much since then. john 00:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The most significant thing here is that the Church in Wales is not a part of the Church of England. The Church of England is the mother church of the Anglican Communion; the Church in Wales is a separate church which is also part of the Anglican Communion. Therefore mention of Wales is not relevant for this page; it may be relevant on the Anglican Communion page. Yes, it IS unusual that the current ABofC has never been a Church of England bishop; but in theory, the head of the Church of England could be from any church in communion with the CofE - ECUSA, the Nigerian Anglican Church, even, I think, in theory the Old Catholic Church in Germany. TSP 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As the article and the Church's website note, a small part of Wales is in the C of E's jurisdiction (I may have even put this in myself) but I am curious for mor detail. I have emailed the Labmeth Palace Library about this. Carolynparrishfan 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Done Carolynparrishfan 14:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of headlines in article

A question before I rashly change it- is there a reason that "appointment of bishops" and "recent developments" is listed before "history"? Seems pretty counter-intuitive to me. --Puffy jacket 11:13, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it's so you can get the headline news before diving into history? Just proposing an explanation, It makes sense to me the other way too.--Fish-man 11:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, the appointment of bishops thing should maybe be spun off to another page altogether. But as long as it's here, I'm gonna move it to a more logical place. Doops 17:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Does it say "other Protestant churches". In what sense is the CoE cut and dried Protestant? I am not aware of any self declaration of that form.

--BozMo |talk 20:12, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, from my understanding the Church of England is both Protestant and Catholic (ish..) hence the Anglo-catholics in so called 'high-churches' and the more 'low-churches' which have signed up to the Evangelical alliance... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.241.231.150 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 22:05, 20 May 2006

"At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that repudiated it. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome." - the official history on the CofE website

The Church of England also seems to fit (and, indeed, is mentioned in) the description on our Protestantism page. TSP 22:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ECUSA and Break with Rome

Two items, which I think it would be nice to bring out.

1) The church has been in England for a long time even prior to the rise of Rome - it would be nice to include a bit about the influence of the early church there, and their artifacts (Book of Kells, etc...) which still color the church both in England and in the States. I am certain the Archbishop of Canterbury would also state that he saw the roots of Anglicanism dating back to those early Christians (not just to the first Archbishop). I think we should document this.

2) The ECUSA seems to be treated as if it is part-and-parcel of the COE, when in fact, although ECUSA owes allegiance to the Archbishop of Canterbury, that is about as far as it goes. ECUSA follows it's own path, and looks to the ABC for guidance. Including the Gene Robinson ordination (which imho, was a good thing) directly with COE information seems misleading - information about that event seems like it belongs more in Anglican Communion and the web page for ECUSA. -Fish-man 18:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think both these concerns have been addressed by revisions in the last month. Doops 22:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Church of England religion

I don't get it. So is the church of England currently and officially a Protestant church or a Catholic church? And I have another question, Protestant and Catholic are both Christian right?

I think a look at Nicene Creed should begin to answer your question. Crculver 03:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are two of what most people would call the three main strands of Christianity, along with Eastern Orthodoxy — but there's nothing official about it. These are just the terms people use. But fundamentally, "protestant" is just an adjective meaning "engaging in protest" and "catholic" is just an adjective meaning "universal." While the Roman Catholic church is pretty much one monolithic thing, there are literally hundreds of independent Protestant churches. The Church of England is definitely one of them, since after its break with Rome it adopted many of the principles of the Protestant reformation. But it also thinks of itself as "catholic" in a certain sense of the word. Since the adjective "catholic" means "universal," a "catholic" church is a universal, world-wide church. The official position of the Church of England is that it is the legitimate English branch of the old world-wide (i.e. catholic) church, and that it only broke from Rome because the Pope was being too autocratic in preventing reforms. For a long time, it was popular in the church of England to call the pope the "Bishop of Rome" — recognizing his legitimate right to run Rome, but denying that he gets to run the whole world-wide church. Officially (in theory), if the Roman Catholic church reformed itself and stopped claiming things like Papal infallibility, the Church of England would fit right back into it. Nonetheless, if you had to assign the C of E to one of those three main strands, it would be in the Protestant one. (Additionaly, in its beliefs and ceremonies, it is one of the protestant churches most similar to the Roman Catholic one — which is probably the real, folk etymological reason people continue to call the C of E "both protestant and catholic".) Doops 05:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, I think that's wrong. The C of E in all its formal statements regards itself as a part of the Catholic church (with a capital "C") which ended communion with Rome when Elizabeth I was finally excommunicated some time into her reign. It was the act of excommunication which was the schism. The Roman Catholic church tries all the time to claim ownership of "Catholic" as a term but it is freely used and owned by other churches including the CoE and the Old Catholic church and others. The Bishop of Rome is a common term for the pope, not just in the past, in all churches so I don't think that bit is right either. However, there is not a lot of point in correcting the main article since WikiPedia always fails when popular opinion runs contrary to history. --195.157.186.49 13:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see how you disagree. If I'm reading it correctly, I agree with everything you wrote; your ¶ doesn't appear contradict mine — they're just different sides of the same coin with different emphases. Doops 17:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Only a church directly established by apostle(s) can claim to be "catholic" christian. Roman catholic (Peter and Paul), orthodoxy (John the youngest), the coptic, Thomas-christians in India, etc. Calvinists, Lutherans and Henry8-ists cannot claim to be catholic, since they do not have any apostolic continuity. They are self-invented religions (calvinist, lutheran) or mockings of a religion (Henry8-ists adore a serial wifekiller). Any person who claims to be a christian priest without receiving the ordination from a bishop who is in effective community of a church directly established by apostle(s) is bound for hell! 195.70.32.136 09:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, as it's a matter of opinion not encyclopedic fact; but, seen as you raise it, the Church of England was founded by the Catholic bishops of England - the founding bishops of the Church were consecrated bishops of the Roman Catholic Church before the Church of England was founded; therefore, assuming a valid apostolic succession still exists in the Roman Catholic Church, it does in the Church of England also. And, of course, Anglicans do not adore Henry VIII; I don't actually think I've ever heard him mentioned in an Anglican service. TSP 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, bishops in the catholic church can only be created by the pope in person or by three bishops acting in unison who were explicitly tasked as such by the pope himself in case of great difficulty of travel. Therefore noone could create a bishop in Britain after they rebelled against Rome, meaning new priests cannot be created as well. Therefore all current such ones are faux and have no power to invoke the sacraments. It is explicitly stated in the Bible that Peter has the utmost authority until Christ returns. There is good reason that the majority of anglican bishops reportedly does not believe in resurrection nowadays. They have no hope to go anywhere but hell then. The best minds in the anglo-saxon word all converted to catholicism. 195.70.32.136 09:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This remains irrelevant to the article, but I don't believe that has ever been the understanding of either the Roman Catholic or the Anglican church. The sacrament of ordination to the episcopate is seen by both those churches to grant (possibly irrevocably) to a bishop the ability to ordain and consecrate; hence, a consecration carried out by bishops without the authority of the Pope might be unlawful, but would be valid - i.e. would confer the status of bishop. See valid but unlawful and valid but irregular.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church's objection to Anglican orders lies in the form of words used in the consecration of the original Anglican bishops. TSP 15:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Governors

Is it correct to describe Mary I as supreme governor? I thought during her reign it was the pope --BozMo 07:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Is the list of governors of the church completely necessary? I would have thought that it was sufficient to say that it is the sovereign, and then mark the Commonwealth and Mary I as exceptions. The schism with Rome is also to do with the rise of nationalism, humanism (in the original sense) and grassroots protest for a reform of the church. Arguments between the Pope and Harry were just the pretext. It is unlikely that the king was ever really Protestant. As with many articles, it is easy to think that only grandees matter: can we have something about the place of the CofE in English society?

Gareth Hughes 13:53, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree - given that there is a perfectly good list of monarchs elsewhere, and especially given that this page doesn't contain a list of Archbishops of Canterbury, which would be far more relevant, this list seems quite superfluous. It's also possibly wrong, given that - as has been noted - Mary at least was a Roman Catholic who certainly wouldn't have regarded herself as Supreme Governor of a protestant church. I'll remove if no-one gives a good reason for its presence in a few days. TSP 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This list ALSO contradicts the one on the Supreme Governor of the Church of England page! I'm going to remove it now - it seems to serve no purpose, is duplicated in one other place and contradicted in another! If someone really feels it should be there they can roll back, but it seems to me to clearly be doing more harm than good. TSP 04:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done; I've moved the text to Talk:Supreme Governor of the Church of England so it can be compared with the text there; it can also be got back from there if you disagree that it should have been deleted. Hope I haven't seemed rude. TSP 05:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, thank you for your boldness. I think the page looks better without the list. The notion of Supreme Governor is important in the Church of England, but not that important. I have already said that I feel this article dwells too heavily on structural and historical considerations rather than giving the reader a clear impression of what the Church of England is like. I would like to contribute a little to the article, but I'm stuck on other things for a while. Gareth Hughes 12:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appointment of Bishops

This section is extremely lengthy and goes into this not-especially-important process in a detail out of all proportion with the article's coverage of other issues.

I've just removed a section of it - "(Seniority of consecration in the Bishops' Orders, not seniority of appointment, determines who may serve in the House of Lords. Even if a Bishop is translated to another see, he does not lose seniority.)" - because it is simply wrong (membership of the House of Lords is based on how long you have been a diocesan bishop - date of consecration isn't relevant). However, I'm not sure what to replace it with - it seemed out of place here anyway - because this section is so out of proportion with the rest of the article. A corrected version of this sentence would properly belong in the section dealing with bishops' membership of the House of Lords; but there is no such section. Should this bit of the article be left, in the hope that the article's coverage of other issues will expand in proportion? Or is there somewhere else it can go? TSP 02:01, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assets

Whoo, OK, whole new can of worms. We need to be careful with POV here; this section started off very NPOV and still is to a degree. For example, it refers to Bishopthorpe Palace's 15 "servants". It links to a slightly POV editorial article to back this up, but even this only says "staff" - given that Bishopthorpe is a conference venue, a historic building, and an office as well as the archbishop's home, it is not likely that most of these are accurately termed servants. I've no idea how many household staff the archbishop has, though I do know he makes is own breakfast. The average bishop in my experience has one or perhaps two full-time-equivalent household staff (gardener, cleaner, chauffeur). This doesn't include secretaries, but then you wouldn't say that a businessman's secretary was a servant. The Church has recently been reviewing whether current houses are economic. Auckland Castle, for example, which is mentioned as an example of excess, was proposed for sale; it's been kept because it is close to making a profit from conferences and so on - meaning that the bishop would be living there for free.

"Palace" is just the term for a bishop's house - some 'palaces' are three-bedroom semis on ordinary streets.

I think this is a valuable subject to have a section on, but it's not started off well.... well done to all those who've tried to neutralise it, but it still needs carefully going through sentence by sentence. TSP 12:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

sigh* I'm really having difficulty making this section meaningful. The income of £134m is, I *think*, the Church Commissioners' income. (£134m is pretty insignificant for an organisation the size of the CofE - clergy pensions alone cost over £100m/year.) This is a pretty meaningless figure, though - the Church Commissioners are just a church body which looks after some jobs - they are not 'The Church'. The only meaningful figure really would be total income for all churches, I think, and I'm not sure that figure is obtainable. The total assets the Church Commissions manage is about 3.9m - I don't know what the 'total funds' figure cited in the article is. TSP 13:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What this section needs is a historial account of the church's assets, covering Henry VIII's seizing of the monastaries and, more importantly, the church commissioners' sale, at some point in the 19th century, of the remaining lands so they could (perhaps unwisely in retrospect) invest the proceeds in more liquid places like the stock market. Bishops' palaces, although interesting, are really not that important in the broader scheme of things. Doops 16:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The highly POV link so emotionally criticised by TSP is from the web site http://www.anglicansonline.org/ - presumably not widely regarded as "enemys of the church".

While TSP might find "difficulty making this section meaningful" the figures stand for themselves without additional POV statements and are simply the Church of England's own published figures.

I agree that the palace servants are servant only in the same sense that royal servants are servants (or that maids or chauffeurs are servants) and I will amend my comments to that effect in due course.

This may be someones cherished home ground, but in other parts of this Wiki I think a rather more professional approach is traditional with fewer "Whoo"s and "*sigh*"s and recollections of "bishops I have known" at a little more focus on the facts.--Daedelus 11:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Come now, that's not called for. This is the talk page, for pete's sake; it's not really fair to call TSP's professionalism into question on the basis of a few comments here. And frankly, Daedalus, you would come across as more "professional" yourself if you could conduct your arguments by focusing on the article rather than making it personal about TSP him-/herself. Doops 15:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's true, I know some bishops - to an extent, that's why I'm discussing it here rather than editing the article itself, because I don't want to fall into the trap of bias the other way - but that's also why I know that the impression given at least by the inital draft, of bishops living in servant-attended luxury, was very far from the truth. I'm afraid that my natural inclination with this section would be to wipe it and start again; while the 10 or so historic castles serving as bishops' homes, and the Church Commissioners' investment funds, are conspicuous assets of the church, I don't actually think they're particularly notable assets. Far more interesting and representative are the thousands of (often historic) churches, and the funds raised in individual parishes and used to pay clergy and do parish work.

Regarding the Independent article: no, the article isn't actually especially anti-church (not that I think Anglicans Online would refuse to host it if it was - as far as I can see they just archive all church-related articles they find interesting), and I did edit my initial text within minutes of posting it to correct myself - I'd only read the first paragraph or so when I originally commented on it, for which I apologise. Nevertheless, it's an opinion article, using statistics to make its point; not an unbiased source of statistics. I don't doubt the statistics are true, but they may not be representative (as I said above, the Church Commissioners are a very small part of the church). I think it's Wikipedia's task to be representative, not to use the facts or statistics which best demonstrate any particular point of view; and to that end I think our approach for this section needs examining carefully. TSP 01:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PS. I read the talk page before reading the article today; it's looking a lot better, thanks to everyone who's worked on it. TSP 01:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The finances of the Church of England are quite complicated. The figures given do not 'speak for themselves', they do need interpretation. The Church Commissioners deal with the budget of stipends, training and pensions. They also deal with bishops' expenses, but that is in the process of review. The review found a great disparity in bishops' expenses, but that was based more on the difference in extra-diocesan responsibilities than the households they kept. Auckland Castle, for example, is the diocesan office for Durham Diocese, a conference centre and the home of the bishop (which takes up decidedly less space than the other operations). Parishes and dioceses have to foot the bill for the maintenance of a great chunk of built heritage, too. Durham Diocese, where I used to serve, had to consider a policy of not filling vacant parish posts for a year to reduce the stipends bill, and most other dioceses of the Church of England are finding that costs are increasing faster than income. Yes, the church is rich, but we're can't find much of a market for used cathedrals. Gareth Hughes 14:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually fairly happy with the passage as it stands now - User:Doops did a great rejig, which I think put User:Daedelus' original content and the content you (Gareth) and others added in response to it into a better context and brought out its proper significance. I've added some more content, clarifying the role of the Church Commissioners (who, incidentally, probably deserve their own page) and putting in several figures from the Church of England's Funding pages] where areas weren't covered in the rejigged version, and it's starting to look pretty encyclopaedic to me now; though I haven't really gone over the final paragraph, which covers among other things the thorny issue of bishops' houses, so I can't comment fully on that.

Incidentally, I'm in Durham diocese at the moment - not clergy, but I'm on Diocesan Synod, which discussed Auckland Castle just last meeting (with the bishop explaining the figures and exactly why it wouldn't be economically better for the diocese to sell the house)... so I was amused to see it as an apparent example of excess here. I think there ARE bishops' houses which are needlessly expensive - both the Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds have asked recently for smaller houses - but because it makes so much from conferences and so on, Auckland actually isn't one of them. (Its context on the page now looks reasonably fair, though.) TSP 14:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

My apologizies; the topic is covered under Wikipedia:categorization. Articles should generally be put under the most specific subcategory of a series to which they belong. This makes navigation of the category feasible, so that Church of England and Category:Church of England do not both clutter the same supercats. Exceptions to this general rule should be specifically argued for, as special cases, and not in ephemeral edit summaries. Septentrionalis 18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If the presence of Church of England and Category:Church of England in Category:state churches (Christian) is clutter, then surely it is the latter which should be removed, not the former. That's just logic. Doops | talk 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would involve eliminating the category; which would involve cluttering three categories it represents over all the members again; which would produce more ness that it solves Anyway, ease of navigation require that you be able to go from Category:Religion in England to the members of Category:Church of England .

What I would need to persuade me is some reason why this particular case should be an exception to the general rule of thumb. It would have to be something that is not true of every article in a subcat. If you have such a reason, you haven't stated it. Septentrionalis 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't involve uncreating the category. Category:Church of England is a useful category for pages related to the Church of England. Not evey page related to the Church of England, however, relates to Category:state churches (Christian). Heck, some of the pages (e.g. All Saints, Rome) don't even relate to Category: religion in England!

Categories should contain parallel things. For example, look at the population of Category: state churches (Christian). Note that there are absolutely NO loose articles about random trivia in the category. It would never occur to somebody writing an article about Uppsala Cathedral to categorize it in Category: state churches (Christian). Well, the same thing is true of Michael Scott-Joynt. Yet he is placed by implication into the category by the current structure.

Bear in mind that every category name has an implied "-related things" in it. So Category: Church of England is a category for Church of England-related things. Category: state churches (Christian) is a category of state-church-related things. Being a member of one does not necessarily entail being a member of the other. So it shouldn't be a sub-cat. Doops | talk 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A slight discrepancy of this kind is true of many subcats. Nor are the members of a cat always parallel, especially when it is abstract. I looked at the cat before I reverted, and I don't think it serious. (For example, Michael Scott-Joynt is related to a state church.) I am not convinced, although I will look again. A consensus may be convincable; if so, this is an exception.

Septentrionalis 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The real problem is that Wikipedia:Categorization has no guidelines at all for what to do in the case of eponymous categories. I feel that it's both fallacious and not very useful (missing the whole point of categories) to assume that a page and its eponymous category are one and the same & allow it membership only in its eponymous category. I'm willing to wait here for the results of a discussion there. Doops | talk 23:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Governer and the Church of Scotland

I believe the British monarch is an ordinary member of the Church of Scotand and I wonder: does QEII ever attend an Anglican church in Scotland and is her status as an ordinary member of the Church of Scotland one that may be assumed by any member of the Church of England? Laurel Bush 12:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC).

As a result of discussions in other pages my current understanding re QEII and the Church of Scotland is as follows:

The monarch is recognised as a member of the Church of Scotland, but whether she is listed on the role of any particular congregation (like any other member) is unclear.

The monarch has no position in the Church equivalent to that of Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Which means, for example, that she has no role in appointments to office within the Church of Scotland.

The monarch is sworn to to protect the Church of Scotland, and the Church is recognised as the "National Church".

The monarch or her representative is routinely invited to speak at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, an invitation not routinely extended to a simple member of the Church or member of the general public.

There is a widespread but questionable belief that the monarch is a simple or ordinary member of the Church of Scotland. The monarch is not the Supreme Governor, anything like it, but she does appear to have a special position, representing or symbolising the relationship between Church and State or the status of the Church with respect to the State.

Laurel Bush 17:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

Incredible as it may sound, by a legal fiction (?) the reigning monarch of the UK changes demonination on crossing the Anglo-Scottish border. Norvo 03:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Left EXPERT template on related topic

Clarified this text as I could -- Left EXPERT template on Talk:Evangelical where I couldn't cut the gordian knot.

Best regards, FrankB 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers!

[edit] Minor Query

For how long was the Church of England back in communion with Rome after the act of reunion? Surely until Elizabeth was excommunicated which was some years into her reign wasn't it? So the reunion shouldn't be described as "brief"?

Almost immediately on becoming sovereign in 1558, Elizabeth I reinstated Cranmer's (second) Prayer Book of 1552 with very minor modifications. This doesn't accord with the notion that the C. of E. remained in actual communion with Rome. Norvo 03:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anglican Bishops

Can someone add a section on women in the Anglican hierarchy, and the recent debates on women bishops to Women as theological figures. The subject could probably be developed as a separate section.

Jackiespeel 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Add more symbols of the Church of England perhaps such as certian diocese flags or the archbishops flag, st georges flag

[edit] 39 Articles

I am curious as to why there is no reference on the main "Church of England" page to the 39 Articles, which are "historic defining statements of Anglican doctrine" according to the page on the articles themselves. Even allowing for controversy over their doctrinal status today, there is presumably a case for including a reference/link in the History section? Brickie 15:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of information missing from this article. I know several people who wish to expand this article, and they commented on this. If anyone could help make a list of topic which need to be expanded. that would be helpful.(14:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] 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 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Church of England

From the end of the 4th century to 664 there were 2 distinct churches in Britain, the Celtic and the Roman. In Scotland a Christian church was established at Whithorn by St. Ninian, and in the 6th century St. Columba came from Ireland to the Scottish island Iona and his teaching spread from there. Meanwhile southern England had been overrun by the Heathen Saxons. Augustine was sent by Pope Gregory from Rome to convert the Saxons and he landed in Kent at 597. He succeeded in his task and became the first Archbishop of Canterbury. In 635 Aidan, a monk of the Celtic Church of Iona Scotland, settled on Lindisfarne, or holy Island, off the cost of Northumberland and converted northern England to Christianity. For some time there was a certain amount of rivalry between the Celtic and Roman Churches, but at the Synod of Whitby in 664 all English Christians became members of the Church of Rome. Often parts of England became heathen for a while, and invasions of the Vikings from Scandinavia weakened the power of the church, although King Alfred the great in the 9th century did much to revive Christian learning and ideals.

[edit] Section on criticism, popular culture, etc

Why isn't there anything in the article which deals with the popular opinion of the church, references to in popular culture? What about mentioning Eddie Izzard, and his "Cake or Death!" routine? Or his claim that Henry the VIII wanted to found a "psychotic bastard religion"? Given that the religion we're talking about WAS set up by a maniac king in order to further his own personal goals, that would provide a bit of objectivity here.

80.233.142.14 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, now you just need relevant sources for all of that... CaribDigita 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is God?

Should God be mentioned in this article? He is mentioned once, and Jesus not at all. What is the Church's stance on God: how do they view God? Ditto Jesus..? --Mal 08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadly speaking they are in favour of God and Jesus. Dabbler 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

lol! I'd like to think so I suppose! ;) --Mal 22:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is, as stated in the first paragraph, a Christian church. People who don't already know the basics of Christianity can follow those links. The Church's theology is explained a little in the 'Theology and sociology', but mostly in terms of other groups, so without explicit explanations of the beliefs of those groups, because that is covered in the linked articles. TSP 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, being an editor of many moons experience now, I realise that of course. But that being said, I also appreciate that different Christian sects also often have differing views on exactly their perception of God. --Mal 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History section

The emphasis on the history section is ridiculous. This is not an article o n the history of christianity in Britain. It is an article on the Church of England, and as such, it should largely focus on the history since 1534. Notice that we don't have an article on the Church of France - the whole reason to have an article on this is because of the existence of the church as an independent entity since 1534, not its earlier history as part of the broader Catholic Church. john k 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Note further: the first three paragraphs deal with the period up to 1534. The l ast two paragraphs deal entirely with the period between 1534 and 1560 or so. There is n o discussion of any developments since then - nothing about Laud and the Civil War, nothing about the Restoration, the nonjurors, the Great Awakening and establishment of Methodism, the Oxford movement and the evangelical revival of the early 19th century, or anything else. This is ridiculous. john k 20:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not following you, we just seem to hang out in the same places. AGAIN, don't talk...EDIT. This isn't representing a POV, nobody wants the article to look this way. It isn't being proposed for FA or anything, you will not get an arguement - it needs work! Not so very long ago, the Anglican articles largely all looked like crap - can I say crap on WP? - which is why WikiProject Anglicanism was started. There just aren't enough editors to fix everything Anglican overnight, esp. when dozens of pages worth of material gets typed onto talk pages to assert the moral right to call Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury or hours get spent tracking down vandals who remove the word "Roman" from every instance of "Roman Catholic" - even if the word appears in a quote from the Pope.

What else have I been doing? I had been working on the Cranmer article, which I am getting pretty satisfied with, and then I became distracted trying to straighten out several new articles on so-called "Proto-Protestant" sects that were - almost down to the very last letter - fictions created by "Restorationist Christians". I was going to tackle Cardinal Pole after Cranmer, but he may have to wait until we get a few more of the Top importance Anglican articles to GA status.

Yes, this article is ridiculous as is and I challenge you to begin to fix it and cite it!

In good faith, -- SECisek 21:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

SECisek - this wasn't mean to criticize you, or anybody in particular, just to draw attention to the bad shape it's in. I'll try to at least add some (probably uncited for now, but hopefully undisputed) stuff on later history at some point soon. Probably not today, though. I am, I admit, much better at complaining on talk pages then actually getting off my ass and writing things. My eyes are bigger than my stomach. BTW, the history section of t he Anglicanism article is far better than this, so it's pretty clearly mostly a matter of this article not getting any attention. Anyway, if nobody else does, I'll try to improve, but I can't promise I'll get to it any time soon. john k 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You wrote " just to draw attention to the bad shape it's in."

Bad shape? Yeah, we know...wink wink nudge nudge. Seriously, do what you can when you can. Although you seem to have your hands full over at Cromwell, where I lurked by recently to tag the Article for the Anglican Project (he DID abolish the episcopacy). Cheers -- SECisek 17:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denomination Info Box

There are going to be huge issues with this box throughout the anglican communion pages. Let's see what's here, shall we?

Classification: Protestant In the lead paragraph just to the left of the box it states clearly that the C of E self identifies as both Catholic and Reformed with not a mention of Protestant.

Orientation: Anglican Orientation? What is that? Neologisim from what I can tell. All in the communion would agree that we are Anglican (sorry Scots). Orientation of one sort or another, on the other hand, is splitting the communion in two.

Polity: Episcopal I suppose I can buy that but it is going to look silly on the pages of churches with the word "Episcopal" in their name.

Founder: Henry VIII Christ was the founder, end of argument. St. Augustine before Henry. This is just wrong.

Origin: 1534 Was that the year the Roman and Irish missions arrived or is that the year the king of Kent converted...I forget...hmmm?

Separated from: Roman Catholic Church No way, they left us: as a point of interest, Canterbury never declared itself out of communion with Rome - it was the other way around.

Associations: Anglican Communion I guess...what about the Old Catholics and the like?

Geographical Area: England and Gibralter...and all of Europe...and...

This box just is not a good fit for the C of E or probably any of the daughter Churches. Thoughts? -- SECisek 05:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Terms

When Greek terms are used, I think it would be helpful to have a transliteration for those who haven't yet master Greek lettering. Only having the Greek letters make things be rather difficult.Sir Akroy 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It immediately follows the description of the church as being cathlic - is that not clear enough? David Underdown 08:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silly?

Having an Offical names subsection is not silly, this is silly: Talk:Episcopal Church in the United States of America#Name. It is also unending and per the (now archived) discussion at the wikiproject Anglicanism page, I am in the process of standardizing all the churches in the communion. This article has still has sections that are quite stubby, please add something rather then removing something. -- SECisek 00:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Although such a section makes sense in the context of that article, it doesn't here. That little one-sentence section is weird and disruptive to the flow; readers will wonder why it's here— and the answer to that question shouldn't be "it proved necessary in some other article so we put it here too." Too much standardization becomes mere procrustianism. Personally, I'm not a big fan of standardization in the first place — it doesn't seem to me that it's the wikipedia way — but if you care about it deeply go right ahead. However, in doing so, bear in mind that while perhaps a range of articles could all have section headings chosen from the same menu, that doesn't mean that EACH article has to have EACH section. Standardization has a little room for picking and choosing, in other words. (Also, your last comment is out of order.) Doops | talk 00:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I do, however, apologize for my edit summary, which probably came across as rude. That wasn't my intention and I'm sorry. Doops | talk 00:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair play, in articles where it can be more then a few sentences, I'll include. It just turned in to a huge problem at ECUSA -- SECisek 01:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Since I started this whole nightmare with the first 'Official names' sub-heading at the Anglican Church of Canada page on 24 Jan 2007 - see (diff). Then I proposed putting an 'Official names' section as a standardization in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism on 10 Feb 2007 - see (diff). Then I put the sub-heading on the Episcopal Church in the United States of America page on 02 March 2007 - see (diff). Then everything went to heck. So I've some explaining to do. To repeat myself, a number of churches in the communion have either official indigenous non-English names or a plethora of old and discarded official names. What I didn't count on at the time was acrimony caused by those discarded official names. I still think it is a good idea because it should give a place for all the alternative names and thus allow NPOV. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anne Boleyn, Thomas More

I added important historical facts to this article like Henry VIII's famous friend Thomas More and Anne Boleyn - THE key figure that sparked the birth of this church and the historical fact that Henry VIII was excommunicated. Why would anyone want to eliminate these facts, they tell the true story. Without them the page is incomplete. Someone reverted my edits as soon as i made them. NancyHeise (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn herself i wouldn't rate as that important, it's the divorce from Henry that's teh eral issue, if it wasn't her, it may well have been someone else within a few years. More is possibly a better canidate for inclusion, but the current wording is rather superficial. Remember that in this article we are only giving a very brief overview, detail is in History of the Church of England and English Reformation. David Underdown (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the opening sentence from Anne Boleyn's Wikipedia page :"Henry's marriage to Anne, and her subsequent execution, were part of the complex beginning of the considerable political and religious upheaval which was the English Reformation, with Anne herself actively promoting the cause of Church reform. She has been called "the most influential and important queen consort England has ever had"."[3] The words "Anne herself actively promoting the cause of Church reform" and "the most influential and important queen consort England has ever had" I think make her a serious enough person for her name to be included in this article. These are key historical facts, not POV. Please keep in mind that often children use Wikipedia to do research for their school projects, these facts with wikilinks will only help them get a clear picture of the birth of this church. Right now, the page is full of things that are not very well presented making the whole issue confusing. At the very least the page should mention the names of key figures in the birth of the church. NancyHeise (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the POV edits, I don't mind a mention of Anne Boleyn, or Bullen or however she spelled it. Hoever, referring to "true" doctrinal Catholic and editorialising that Henry had a problem with adultery are definitely POV, he may have been an adulterer but his serial marriages indicate that he didn't want to be an adulterer, he wanted to be married. You also put in the statement that Henry had "hundreds of Catholics" executed. My research indicates that this is not the case and unless you can provide references, it should stay out. All in all, your edits rad like a staunch Roman Catholic who disapproves of Henry and wants to paint him in a bad like. Hardly NPOV.Dabbler (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to insert facts, not POV. Right now this article really needs work. I find it misleading, confusing, poorly organized, COMPLETELY POV, and lacking references. I will leave open the offer to improve the article's POV problems and organization. Cheers! NancyHeise (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is any more point of view than the RC article (and I've followed both for an extended period of time). It might be more effective if you pointed out a few specifics taht you find confusing here on the talk page, and we can address those issues between us. Labelling the whole article as confusing does nothelp to take things forward. Now, obviously there are things which I probably take for granted which may not seem obvious to you, so there are undoubtedly improvements to be made, but some of your changes have not been particularly helpful - the introduction to the article is not the place for a lengthy sentence on how it's not RC for example. Particularly since the previous sentence about the reformed nature of the church says that the CofE does not recognise papal authority it's palpably obvious that it cannot therefore be part of the RC church. David Underdown (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] suggestions for improvement

I would like to suggest editors of this article take a look at the Featured Article on Islam for ideas about how to improve this one. If you will notice, the Islam article is written in simple language that is easy for anyone to understand. It is well organized and tells the reader the plain and simple facts without clouding the issue with too many details that are already covered in other wikipages. Those pages are referenced with either a brief sentence mentioning the wikilinked subject or in the See Also section. Right now, this article is not clear to the reader on what the Church of England is. The language used to describe it would not be understood by a non-Christian teenager doing research on the subject for a school paper. If you would like ideas on organization for this article, I would like to point you also to the Featured Article on Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and Roman Catholic Church. Please remember that the lead paragraph is used to give a general overview of the entire article in a concise manner. If you don't talk about it in the body of the article, it should not be in the lead paragraph. Your lead paragraph could be reworded to make the reader more clear on what the Church of England is. Good luck! NancyHeise (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only religion with a logo:)

Hello, is this just a unfortunate name, or does really Church of England have a "logo"? If true... my God, we're waaaaay far from Jesus. Remember Eddie Izzard? "Today Church of England is more of a hobby-type thing"... oh my yes, we have a logo and some pretty cool songs. 193.170.226.34 (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Is 'logo' the wrong word? Maybe. But the CofE is far from the only church to have one. Here's the Methodist Church of Great Britain's. Here's the United Reformed Church's. Here's the Church of Scotland's. Here's the Scottish Episcopal Church's. Here's the United Methodist Church's. Here's the Anglican Church of Canada's. Here's the United Church of Christ's. Here's the Free Methodist Church's. Here's the American Baptist Churches USA's. Here's the Southern Baptist Convention's.

In fact, I'm having some trouble finding a major denomination without a logo; apart from the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, which each reject the concept of denominations and consider themselves to alone constitute the true Church (to over-simplify the issue a little), so perhaps would feel that having a distinctive logo for their 'denomination' would weaken this stance (although the Papal emblem and the Russian Orthodox cross serve some of the same purposes.)

In almost all everyday uses, individual Church of England churches will identify themselves by the traditional marks of Christianity - the cross, the fish, the chi-rho - but it can be useful to have a distinctive symbol of one denomination, for example to put on a church noticeboard outside, so that those used to one denomination's practices can easily find churches of their preferred denomination. TSP (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reader

Could we add something on the office of "Reader". Not being Anglican myself, I hesitate to write this in case I upset anyone by getting it slightly wrong! dbfirs 09:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well we really need to incorporate an overview of Anglican ministry, and for Readers, material from Lay reader. David Underdown (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)