Talk:The Falls Church
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The letter in question from Bishop Lee does exist although not anywhere online. I don't think the description of the parish is improved by reference to the letter, and besides, there are many issues much larger than one letter causing a break within the Anglican Communion. Also, a quibble: The Falls Church (Anglican and Episcopal) are parishes, not churches. The "church" is the entire ecclesial body to which a parish belongs. QJX (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
There are some dangerous sections here that need cites to maintain NPOV, especially: '"This perception came from a number of incidents including the failure of the 2006 General Convention to confirm Christ as Lord, and a letter from Bishop Lee (Diocese of Virginia) stating that Christ is not the sole means of salvation." ' That's some strong stuff, and smells like propaganda from those who wish to demonize Bishop Lee. --ElmoHoo (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Jbtlr: I have taken the inflamitory statements you cited and presented them as the opinion of TFC(A) as an explanation for why they left. There is room to present the reasons of TFC(E) for staying, and I hope you do. I think that it is appropriate to present summary arguments, in a matter-of-fact way, on both sides so that people can at least gain an introduction to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 11:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Jbtlr: We have two other options before resorting to a third party, and I think we can come to an agreement. 1) Create two entries for the two different churches. Originally, this page was really about The Falls Church (Anglican). Trying to make it about both was probably a mistake. The Falls Church (Episcopol) is really a different organization and should have its own entry. 2) I could try to relate the notion that TFC(A) perceived a discrepency between the constitution and the actions of ECUSA in a less inflamitory way (e.g. your second example). I cannot take credit for most of your first example, which looks to me like mostly a statement of facts.
Twakjaco: I have no problem with the constitution of TEC being cited. It was deleted automatically when its reference was deleted. The reference I do have a problem with -- your additions contain way too much point of view, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.
Example: '"because of such controversies as the failure of the 2006 General Convention to confirm Christ as Lord.[1] Consequently, there are now two bodies bearing the name: The Falls Church (Anglican) describes itself as Evangelical, which emphasizes the authority of the Bible, salvation through faith in Christ, and traditional Christian teachings as documented in the Book of Common Prayer, and The Falls Church (Episcopal), which describes itself as "an Episcopal Church centered on the hopeful promises of Jesus Christ, love for one another, and service to the community." ' Is unbalanced and leans heavily toward the Falls Church (Anglican) point of view.
and your comment
Ironically, by separating, The Falls Church (Anglican) is more closely adhering theologically to the constitution of the Episcopal Church[2] which states that it's (SIC) faith is described in the Book of Common Prayer, requires bishops to swear to uphold the Bible as the holy word of God, and requires the church to be in good standing with the greater Anglican Communion.
is not just point of view, but editorial comment.
The next step in Wikipedia policy is for us to agree to a third party resolution of this dispute. Would you agree to stand by a third party ruling?
Jbtlr 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Jbtlr: You make some good points; however, the resolution confirming Christ as Lord is not just one of hundreds of resolutions. It is a consistent resolution that has been proposed and passed for decades. It is a litmus test that the orthodox have been using to gage the state of the church, and this is well known. The General Convention voted it down, not "for a variety of complex reasons", but to send a message to the orthodox that this is THEIR church, and their theology is going to take precidence over traditional beliefs and even over the Consitiution. This is why I think it is so important to point out what the Consititution says regarding some of these fundamental issues.
But even if you don't think this is good evidence, there are plenty of other things I could site instead. And I still don't understand why you would take out the link to the Constitution, which defines what the churh is supposed to be. It's this very inconsistancy between what the church is supposed to be versus what it does that has caused the separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 14:38, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Twakjaco: The Falls Church article already contains a reference to the reason the majority members voted to leave the Episcopal Church: The decision to break away was due to the majority's perception that the Episcopal Church is moving away from traditional Christian beliefs such as those documented in the Book of Common Prayer. That is a fair statement -- the majority DO perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the Episcopal Church is moving away from traditional Christian beliefs. So that statement can be considered a fair one; a generally agreed upon reason for the majority's vote.
But to imply that by not passing a specific resolution at The General Convention, when there are hundreds of resolutions that are either never brought to the floor or voted down for a variety of complex reasons, is evidence that the Episcopal Church in general has changed its theological stance, is misleading.
Even if the Episcopal Church, at The General Convention, were to pass a resolution stating a non-orthodox view on theology, that would not be, by itself, determinative of the theology of the Episcopal Church, because as you rightly point out, the theology of the Episcopal Church is found in the Book of Common Prayer, and The General Convention did not modify the Book of Common Prayer. In fact, as an orthodox person myself, I am glad mischief-makers at General Convention cannot easily modify the BCP according to the latest theological or social trend. The BCP thus remains something of a ballast in stormy times. Jbtlr 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would anyone remove the reference to the constitution of the Episcopal Church? It is relevant to the separation because it is evidence of what the church is supposed to be.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 13:58, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
Please stop insisting that we broke away simply because of the ordination of Gene Robinson. This is actually an extreemly unfair treatment of this issue. The fact is that this split has been happening for over 30 years- long before this ordination. It is a deeply theological divide which is rooted in a difference in how we view Christ.
I also think it is somewhat inappropriate for someone to make a claim about The Falls Church's (Anglican) reasons for leaving if they don't actually go there. It's the same a putting words in someone else's mouth.
