Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 There is an on going dicussion about just how Protestant this Church is. The church no longer refers to itself as Protestant in general. What is more the Protestant Episcopal Church has started using that name and the ECUSA seems quite happy to let them have it.

Orientation: Mainline, 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 of course they are "Episcopal" - it is in their name.

Founder: Samuel Seabury Christ was the founder, end of argument. There were Episcopalians here waiting for Seabury when he came from Scotland. He was not a founder of anything other than a line of Apostolic Succession.

Origin: 1789 If the Church is Protestant, why was it founded 100+ years after the Reformation ended in England?

Separated from: Church of England Not seperated, misleading, full communion with Canterbury.

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

Agree with SECisek. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The point of an Info Box is to convey information in a uniform and concise manner. I'm willing to concede that any attempt to convey information in a uniform and concise manner will miss some of the nuances. I don't see how that's an argument against the Info Box.
I also think that Wikipedia works better if you try improving the edits that people make instead of simply reverting them. If there were better ways to do an Info Box, you should make the changes, not just get rid of it. Adam_sk 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is better to improve rather than delete. But sometimes forcing round pegs into square holes is too much of a bother. And the nuances in this case are not trivial but contentious enough that they'd end up spawning an edit war. Really I do try to add content to Wikipedia and not take it away. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Adam_sk. You don't know there will be an edit war until one begins. Then the infobox can be removed. Making the second comment on an issue, "Agree with SECisek. Cheers!" and then unilaterally removing the infobox does not, it seems to me, honor the point of having a talk page. In fact, I think you risk igniting an edit war by simply removing something that has been put up for discussion, rather than letting the discussion take its course. I think it's short-circuiting discussion. —InkQuill 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
InkQuill, obviously a slow motion edit war has already begun with on one side, me and editor SECisek and on the other side you and editor Adam_sk. So, yes, the info placed in the info box is contentious. It will spark endless quibbling. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm in no edit war and don't intend to get into one. The reason I don't post a lot of comments is because I don't care to get into such battles. I was only giving my opinion, which is what I thought this page was for. I just think more discussion should take place before something is deleted. I've looked at a few other denominational pages to see if there was a similar infobox and haven't found one, so it's not a big deal to me. —InkQuill 21:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points here (perhaps too late to be useful). It does seem dubious to call Samuel Seabury the founder of the church, but dating it to 1789 is clearly (more or less?) correct - as a church distinct from the Church of England, the Episcopalian Church has only existed since after the Revolution. In terms of "orientation," it seems clearly correct to describe the church as "mainline." The Episcopal Church is clearly "mainline" by every definition of the term ever used. As far as "protestant," obviously this is a whole can of worms - perhaps it would be better to describe its classification as Anglican, and its orientation as mainline? I do think, though, that it's defensible to describe the Episcopal Church as, in a broad sense, protestant - that was even its formal name until quite recently (or, possibly, is still its formal name). And whether or not two churches are in "full communion" has nothing to do with whether they are separate organizations. The Episcopal Church is clearly a distinct organization which split from the Church of England, due to the fact that the latter was governed by a foreign monarch, which American episcopalians could not stomach. john k 18:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

MOVED FROM MY TALK PAGE I've had far too many arguments with pigheaded Wikipedians who refuse to let other people edit their pages to want to argue this with you. In my opinion, the denomination infobox brings some uniformity and helps to immediately clarify a confusing issue (denominational lineage). I can understand disagreeing with who the "founder" of a church is - in which case, you should just remove the founder box from the infobox. I see nothing objectionable with the rest of the box, and I think it's very rude to revert edits when people are just trying to help.

Adam_sk 12:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not exactly assuming good faith here. I posted a number of objections concerning a number of lines on the "proposed" info box and "denominational lineage" was indeed one such problem. None of the pages in question are "my pages" - I have no pages. As for being pigheaded, I have been PLEADING for help with the Cranmer and Dunstan articles, which I have put a GOOD deal of work into and still would never call "my own." Without addressing any of the concerns raised by me or subsequently by others, you simply called me "rude". I don't want to "argue" about this either, but if you wish to discuss it, as I invited you to, feel free to state your position here or on the relavent talk pages. -- SECisek 07:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why should we beat each other up over this? Let somebody else do the dirty work: put this info box on the Roman Catholic and the Baptist articles and just step back and watch the fireworks begin. Watch them fight it out - the box will be removed or reverted constantly and we can go about are other projects in a good civil manner. The box is far to open to POV to be used. -- SECisek 21:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL. Best comment I've read in a while. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

Both the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church and the title page of the Constitution & Canons agree that the official name is now the Episcopal Church.

Here is one of the many sites lamenting the change and demanding a return to the old name:episcopalian.org regrets the primary disuse of the old name "Protestant Episcopal Church".

Another group, the TPEC, now sees itself as the real Protestant Episcopal Church and uses that name as well. Note the description of the first hit in this google search.

There is an anon., single purpose IP 71.127.159.171 that exists solely to make edits bluring this distinction, going so far as name dropping PECUSA in insignificant contexts, see the discussion of one such instance here.

Do any editors have thoughts concerning my revert? -- SECisek 09:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The title page of Constitution & Canons reads:
Constitution &
Canons
Together with the Rules of Order
For the government of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of America
Otherwise Known as
The Episcopal Church
Adopted and Revised in General Convention, 1789-2006
2006
The Preamble of the same document begins, "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is ..." The name of the church is clearly the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. The Episcopal Church is clearly how the church is otherwise known. The article in the 1997 Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is just plain wrong (to allow the benefit of the doubt, wrong at least since 2006) when compared the actual primary source of the relevant information. The text that Secisek removed reflects the information contained the primory source.
The Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church website clearly gives their name as the Traditional Protestant Episcopal Church. They do not claim that their body uses the name Protestant Episcopal Church, but only states that their group is a continuation of the Protestant Episcopal Church. The evidence in the google search result that Secisek cites does not exist at the actual page of the TPEC.
The edits which Secisek finds objectionable are factual and have credible, authoritative references. He should refrain from changing them unless he can find sources that are more authoritative that refute the Constitution & Canons and show the edits are in error.--71.127.159.171 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If the names used are either "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or "Episcopal Church," and we all seem to agree it is either one or the other, then why is the article at Episcopal Church in the United States of America? It should be either at Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church (United States) (or something equivalent). I'd probably prefer the latter - Protestant Episcopal Church may be the official formal name, but it is rarely used these days. john k 18:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I reworked a bit and I feel we might be close to something we can agree on. The Oxford book is NOT wrong, the offical (not the alternate) name IS Episcopal Church.
I was in another state last weekend and I attended a church I had never been in before, 100+ miles from my own home. With this discussion in mind, I looked for the nomenclature in use there. I found what I suspected, just like back home, the term "Protestant Episcopal Church" does not appear ANYWHERE. Not on the free literature, not on the sign outside, not on the bulletin. Nowhere. This is WP:OR and proves nothing, but it further convinced me that john k, myself, the Oxford University Press, and others are correct.
The name change is controversial among some, as a google search will show. Many are unhappy with it, but claiming it didn't take place here will not reverse it. Further more, remember WP is not a soap box or a place to right great wrongs: WP:NOT. Best, -- SECisek 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Being the editor who created the sub-heading "Official names" in an attempt to address the problem, I think it is converging on something reasonable. I do find the amount of effort expended on this one section amazing. In essence, the TEC has three names: a long form, a short form and a corporate identity. What no one has added is the French and Spanish official names because the TEC does work in Spanish and French! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 22:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't give anybody any ideas. ;-) -- SECisek 22:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not 'stir the pot' or 'throw oil on the fire'? I imagine this will irritate a certain demographic no end. Every one - for your own safety - please stand back. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you have really done it! ROTFL! -- SECisek 00:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

These aren't church bulletins, but:

http://www.roseburgchurch.net/#links
http://www.episcopal-ks.org/stpauls-cc/html/about_us.html
http://www.stjohns-dc.org/
http://www.powerweb.net/stmark/pages/episcopalians.htm
http://gracechurchsh.net/
http://georgia.anglican.org/canons/canons.html
http://www.stmarkscocoa.org/St.%20Mark%60s%20Church.htm

As for "soapboxing", thank you for pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye.--72.81.247.125 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No one is saying that name is NEVER used. See my latest edit. Hopefully it is one we all can live with. We seem to be quite close here. If the user above is the one who we were discussing this with a few days ago, I urge you again to register. -- SECisek 05:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What problem could you possibly have had with my last version?--72.81.247.125 12:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is it is wrong. It is arguments like this that make me want to quit editing. People (often editing behind an IP address) who push a POV in the face of well known, established facts simply ruin Wikipedia. In 2+ months, I have edited 4 GAs and I have an FA candidate, but of most my time is wasted on rubbish like this. One editor insisted for weeks that Cardinal Pole was the "last" Archbishop of Canterbury and that the see has been vacant since. I am currently involved in a dispute with an editor in fantasy land who insists that St George is not the "real" patron saint of England. Now this. The name is the Episcopal Church in the United States of America. This is not an opinion, it is a fact published by numerous primary, secondary and (see below) tertiary sources. So many trusted and important sources say it is the proper name that if this is not the case then this huge, widespread error-or possibly conspiracy-still warrents mention in the article.

Click on the link, make the image full size, and read the published facts, please. I am not the only editor making this case, we can't all be wrong. Furthermore, with respected sources backing the point, it does not have to be correct as it is verifiable. Would you care to suggest some compromise wording like the kind you reverted. Oh, and please register - I am sick of fighting with SPAs. -- SECisek 17:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I hesitate to dip into this argument in midstream, but if this is an issue of the authoritative source, it seems to me the Constitution and Canons trump the Oxford Dictionary. The entry seems right as it is: There are two official names (PECUSA and TEC), but a third unofficial name (ECUSA) is commonly used. But I would removed the references to the abbreviations TEC and ECUSA. Too much inside baseball. --InkQuill 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I concur with abbreviations being over detailed, but they are used later and a rework would be needed. Constitutions and Canons acknowledges both names as offical, which is what the article states now. I agree with InkQuill and I may have been misunderstood. I am quite pleased with the text as it now stands. -- SECisek 18:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This was the exact conclusion I came to in spring '07 when I was in a bizarre edit war over the name. I was the guy who originally posted the references to the canons. I agree with Secisek in that these silly controversies eat up to much effort. For those who haven't looked past 'Official names', the rest of the article is not GA status. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, InkQuill. That is precisely the point that I have been trying to make with Secisek. The text which I have written into the article is nearly a quote of the definitive authoritative primary source - namely the Constitution and Canons. Since Secisek's stated objection to my last edit was his belief that it was incorrect and he has now admitted that he was incorrect, I am reinstating my last edit.--72.81.247.125 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
IP editor 72.81.247.125, unsourced phrases like incorrectly interpreted by some to be a change seems to me to be soapboxing. Wikipedia is not here to 'correct' the world. And why was the official names in French and Spanish removed. They were sourced and are official. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The foreign language references do not accurately reflect the translations of the Constitutions and Canons in those languages. They are also soapboxing, and, judging from your comments on this talk page, goading. The phrase incorrectly interpreted by some to be a change was not exactly unsourced and was included to document that there are incorrect accounts of the name-related proceedings of 1979 General Convention.--72.81.247.125 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What? The French and Spanish official names of the TEC are official because they appear in a official document of the TEC. Are you saying that the staff of the TEC don't know their job? Have you checked out the official website of the TEC? It is called "The Episcopal Church". It is copyrighted in the name of "The Episcopal Church". Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 21:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have, however, added the other name given for the church in the Spanish version of the Constitution and Canons. I'm not sure if a French version of the longer name exists. TSP 22:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The French C & C exists, even if it is not on-line. Is Wassupwestcoast now saying that a website is more authoritative than the C & C? --72.81.247.125 23:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The official name section looks OK to me. It is quite likely that the website represent the official face of the TEC. This reminds me of the Thirty-Nine Articles in relation to the doctrine of the TEC. I assume you know the endless bickering this can engender. IP Editor 72.81.247.125, please join me and all the others in editing everything Anglican related ...not just the name of the TEC. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

While anon., single purpose IPs continue to try to "right the great wrong" of PECUSA no longer being used, I would just like to point out that the on-line Encyclopædia Britannica has no entry for Protestant Episcopal Church, but does list that title as an alternate name of the Episcopal Church, USA. This is really getting old. -- SECisek 22:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

While POV-pushing registered users continue to try to "right the great wrong" of the word "protestant" being part of the actual name of the Church, I would like to point out that secondary sources are less authoritative than primary ones, even if an editor disagrees with the primary source. User Secisek says "PECUSA no longer being used" and also says "No one is saying that name is NEVER used." ROTFL! --72.81.247.125 02:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
What is so funny that you are ROTFL? PESCUA is no longer used in general, but nobody is saying it is NEVER used. That is a fact. Where is the humor in that statement?
You are wrong, how long is this going to go on. I do not need to "right the great wrong" because I am right.
Protestant is part of AN offical name, you are wrong to say it is part of THE actual name. I am trying to retain a NPOV, as nearly every published reference that has come out in my lifetime supports the position that your account exists solely to modify.
Look at your contributions:
71.127.159.171
72.81.247.125
Now keep this in mind:

" Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another...However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia."

There are 2,040,000 google hits for "Episcopal Church". There are only 177,000 for "Protestant Episcopal Church" and many of those point to Churches using that name who are not in communion with the ECUSA. I have not seen one website or blog demanding that the word "protestant" be dropped, but there are numerous ones demanding that the word "protestant" be restored. Somebody is wrong here and I don't believe it is me, the Oxford Press, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is what you would have us belive. With those references on my side, I don't even have to argue "right versus wrong" to have my edit stand as it is verifiable. If it "true" or not is irrelavent once verifiability is established from sources like Brittanica and Oxford press.
Wikipedia suggests resolving name disputes:

"

Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.

"

If we must continue this we will, but I ask you to let it rest and I suggest you broaden your editing beyond this one point.

Here is some fun from Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

Criterion PECUSA ECUSA
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 0 1
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 1
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.
-- SECisek 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if Secisek's analysis per Wikipedia:Naming conflict were correct, it would be relevant only to conflicts in determining the name of an article. I have not proposed changing the name of the article. What I did was identify the Church in the article with the exact language the Church uses to identify itself. The language is sourced and verifiable. It is in the document of governance of the Church itself. This primary source is definitive, authoritative, accurate and objective. It is current, being the latest version published in 2006, and is not a generation old. The word which you find objectionable is used in secular publications as well as other Church publications. The text I used is as NPOV as can be as it includes both names being offered as the true name of the Church. --72.81.247.125 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

IP editor 72.81.247.125, your interpretation of the canons constitutes original research. See Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources where there is a specific note:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.

As Secisek has taken utmost pains to point out, no secondary source agrees with your interpretation. Apparently, you've taken it upon yourself to re-name the TEC. Why you do not contribute to Wikipedia in any other way is beyond me. This is supposed to be a hobby. I've invited you twice to help with the Anglicanism article. Please help. Surely, re-naming the TEC can not be your hobby. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have provided links on this talk page to secondary sources that do agree with the Constitutions and Canons. I have not attempted to re-name the Church - only the General Convention has that authority. Because secisek and wassupwestcoast have found issue with the language I have used in documenting the name of the Church, I have instead used the actual text that was approved by the General Convention in 2006 in the Constitution and Canons. In using the actual text, I have removed any possible trace of my own personal interpretation. Perhaps if you could show how the Constitutions and Canons were not the authoritative document for the Church...
As for wassupwestcoast's invitation, I must defer accepting it. --72.81.247.125 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another "mistaken" source: Columbia Enyclopedia

I don't put much stock in this source, but 72.81.247.125 has cited them elsewhere in this debate. Surely if the beloved Columbia Encyclopedia says the name was changed, then it must be so.

Again, I refuse to allow and edit to stand that is contradicted by every source that Wikipedia holds dear. Protestant Episcopal Church is for the moment an alternate name of the church. It is a well known, documented fact, the article reflects this. I ask again that this debate be closed and we all move on to better editing. -- SECisek 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, secisek refuses to accept the authority of the Church to choose its own name. Given that there is a difference in the interpretation of the meaning of the words in the Constitution and Canons, the NPOV thing to do is to use the actual words, which are approved by the latest General Convention of the Church. I accept the ruling of the Church leadership over any and all third party interpretations.--72.81.247.125 23:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The church has a prefered name and it is not the one that you account exists solely to advance. The quote you have offered has remained in the text. You have made no case other then an a personal interpretation of a single line from C.&C. that you claims refutes everything else published on the subject. So there is a massive conspiracy to change the name and Oxford, Brittanica, Columbia and all major reference sources are in on it! This deserves an article itself! Tell us, who is behind this cabal that you have uncovered?

In light of everything established on this talk page, a further revert of sourced material without consesus will be seen as vandalism. If you really will not let this go, stick an NPOV tag at the top. -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC) -- SECisek 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jiminy Cricket, I can't believe that this argument has dragged on this long. Let me cast my vote with those who think that the current "Official Names" section thoroughly covers both sides of this argument. And frankly, whether the first sentence calls it The Protestant Episcopal Church ... or just The Episcopal Church..., surely it's not something that's worth a revert war over, is it? Yes, the canons call it PECUSA (which is actually what I learned the "official" name was in my confirmation class), but the vast majority of sources consider it to be just ECUSA. The "Official Names" section documents this quite well I think. Esrever 00:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If we were trying to push a POV out of the article, I could see the problem, but as the article stands right now, the "prevailing" view is prominent and other POVs are represented. -- SECisek 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Now a new IP address: 72.81.218.211. Also, misleading in the edit summary to say that the latest edit was a 'compromise'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If I may, I'd suggest assuming good faith. Truth be told, I rather think "formally known as" is a compromise, and one I'd probably endorse. I recognize, of course, that this user is essentially an SPA, but I don't think it hurts to acknowledge that the Canons do call the church "PECUSA, otherwise known as", which does seem to be the "formal" name, then. Again, is this really worth an edit war? Esrever 16:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Offical names subsection WAS a compromise to head off an arguement/edit war in the lead section. This SPA appeared a few months later and began tampering with the offical names section and, not getting enough satisfaction, moved the fight back to the lead. If we are going to fight over the lead then the compromise Offical names section is really pointless. PECUSA is mentioned in the Offical names. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This is not the place to say, "While the entire world refers to the church as the 'Episcopal Church', it really should be called the 'Protestant Episcopal Church'." There are many blogs that make the case for the return to the old name. Wikipedia is not a blog. -- SECisek 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi 155.104.37.17. I have just finished reading Zahl, Paul F. (1998). The Protestant Face of Anglicanism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publish Company. ISBN 0802845975. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help). The author is the former dean of Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. This is very much a Protestant view of the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. I will quote in full:
page 56

Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..

and page 69

With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA.

Seriously, even the friendly (to your position) secondary sources do not agree with your interpretation. The TEC has been known as ECUSA since the '70s which has morphed to the TEC since the '80s. PECUSA is not the name which the TEC - on their website, on their signs, in their Prayer Books - uses. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
For some relevant reading see User:Ghirlandajo#Views on mainspace. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Your assessment is not correct that all secondary sources conflict with the "formally known as" wording, much less the C&C wording. I have provided sources here that illustrate this. Furthermore, as has been cited in the article, the General Convention voted in 1985 to retain PECUSA as the name of the church. 1985 comes after 1979 (but some editors may interpret that order of events as being different). The opening of the article should use the "formally known as" wording, as it is correct. I already indicated in the "official names" section that TEC is the more common use. Wassupwestcoastcheers should feel free to include text in the body of the article that reports the relationship between the different varieties of churchmanship. --72.81.218.211 10:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC) (was 72.81.247.125)

More links for two editors to ignore: http://www.stmarysepisc.org/History/HistoryIndex.html http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/e/ep/episcopal_church_in_the_united_states.html http://www.edow.org/parish/administration/wardens/mdvestryact.htm http://www.christchurch1828.org/?page=about_the_episcopal_church http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9061604/Episcopal-church http://www.anglicanroots.com/ECUSA.htm http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/episcopa.htm http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/esp/pec.html http://anglicansonline.org/news/articles/2006/EnglertComplaint.pdf http://www.manta.com/coms2/dnbcompany_6nvcqg http://www.dioceseny.org/~controller/FINANCIALSTATEMENTS.PDF http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/njreligiousstatutes.pdf http://www.ecusa.org/ http://www.nyhealth.gov/facilities/nursing/facility_characteristics/pfi0444.htm --155.104.37.17 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You realize some of the sites you listed acknowledge the name change? -- SECisek 09:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the text and explanation of resolution A112 published on the official website of the 2006 General Convention, which refers to '...the current official name "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church," as stated in the preamble to the Constitution...' You have now an official publication of the Church stating what is the "official name." Game - Set - Match --72.81.218.211 05:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

User SECisek has extensively sourced the text. IP user 72.81.218.211 (and from other apparent IP addresses) has contributed nothing but a never-ending quibble about the name of the TEC. A unique view of the world is not the basis for Wikipedia contributions. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Secisek and wassupwestcoastcheers appear to be on a propaganda campaign to bury the association of the word "Protestant" with the Episcopal Church in the USA. The fact is that the Church has named itself in its own official documents. Unfortunately for some strident Anglo-catholic Episcopalians, that name continues to include the dreaded "P" word. One of the campaigning editors has even conceded above that "Protestant is part of AN offical name...", but now insists on wording contrary to that concession. The text that wwwc removed is as NPOV as can be - it merely quoted the church's official documents. Also removed was text that discussed the conflict between the evangelicals and Anglocatholics about the church's name. As far as my having a "unique view" of this issue, I wasn't even the first to point this out: user BPMullins did earlier in Talk:Episcopal_Church#Episcopal_church.
I would welcome and would assist any efforts to properly represent the facts of this issue - that the Church Constitution and Canons gives the church's official name and also a name by which the church is also known. I also support any rational description of the more common use of one name over the other. I have tried to present NPOV text. I will continue to do so.--72.81.218.211 04:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


At no point have I or any editor suggested removing the name PECUSA from the alternate names section of the article. You don't think it the least bit odd that Brittanica, Oxford Press, and the Columbia Enyclopedia are all "in" on our "propaganda campaign"? You removed a statement that was sourced from three well respected publications to advance the only edit your account has ever made - an edit that I no longer can believe is being made in good faith, jusging from your edit history. I am warning you of vandalism on your talk page as a first step in leading you to more constructive editing. -- SECisek 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Secisek, you has consistently removed references to PECUSA being the church's official name. You don't think it the least bit odd the Church names itself such in the Constitutions and Canons? You don't think it odd that the General Convention of the church voted NOT to removed the name you dislike in 1985? You don't think it the least bit odd that, in a resolution passed in 2006, the General Convention voted to charge a standing committee to review the "the current official name 'The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church' as stated in the Constitution and Canons? I think those things which secisek ignores are completely definitive as well as authoritative descriptions of the name this church carries. The current documents of the church indicate that it would be INCORRECT to describe PECUSA as merely an alternative or historical name. I have provided links on this talk page to various current usages of PECUSA.
I do not ignore the articles in the Columbia Encyclopedia ("renamed the Episcopal Church in 1967") and the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, but their texts regarding PECUSA conflict with the record of official acts of the Church. I am searching the archives of the General Conventions to find an justification for the statements in those reference works, but have been unsuccessful. I suspect that it has to do with the wording in the BCP, but that is conjecture on my part. I will try to find an NPOV way to describe in the article that this conflict exists. The article in Britannica does not definitively support secisek's position.
As for the Zahl book, it doesn't appear that Secisek has even seen this book, unless Secisek and Wassupwestcoast are the same person. Wassupwestcoast entered on this talk page two short excerpts from the book, one of which had the phrase "...used to be called PECUSA...", and one of which did not refer to the church name at all. All of secisek's cites are of this book are of the same two pages referenced by wassupwestcoast.
As for Secisek's unsigned vandalism warning on my talk page, it is harassment. My edits are accurate and sourced and NPOV, they just don't advance his agenda. If secisek's harrassment continues, I will report it. --72.81.218.211 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Good grief, IP editor. I am not SECisek. Actually, Secisek is not even an anonymous editor - the fellow is completely in the open. And yes I read Zahls' book - Zahl, Paul F. (1998). The Protestant Face of Anglicanism. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publish Company. ISBN 0802845975. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |origdate=, and |coauthors= (help) - cover to cover. I borrowed it from my local library so that I could make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia. Zahl is the former dean of Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham, Alabama and the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry. He is very much of the Protestant view in the TEC. There are references to PECUSA. And I will repeat them. They are quoted verbatim: On page 56 it says,"Protestant consciousness within ECUSA, which used to be called PECUSA (i.e., the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A) is moribund..." and on page 69 "With the approval and lightening ascent of the 1979 Prayer Book came the end, for all practical purposes, of Protestant churchmanship in what is now known aggressively as ECUSA." I will also repeat myself and say that secondary sources friendly to your position do not agree with your interpretation. Also, I was the one who created the 'Official names' sub-heading so that the article would deal fairly with all possible POVs. It does so. My agenda is to contribute constructively to Wikipedia in as many ways as possible. I go out of my way to read books and to provide references to secondary sources. This has become the strangest name quibble yet. And unfortunately name quibbles are a blood sport on Wikipedia. Once again I invite the IP editor to contribute in other ways to the Anglicanism project. There is much that needs to be done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly removed the statement that PECUSA is the offical name of the church. It is not. It is an alternate name. I have never suggested that it is not an alternate name. Interpreting the phrase in C&C as a citation for your position, as you have done, is WP:OR and is invalid. Oxford Press says the name change took place in 1979, so citing and article from 1964 won't advance your position, either.
This arguement has nothing to do with if I "like" or "don't like" the name PECUSA, the fact is it an alternate name. The official name is noted and cited and yet it keeps getting removed. By your own admission, your personal opinion (at worst) or your WP:OR (at best) leads you to believe this cited fact is not true and that the cited sources are not true.
I will not argue "truth" here because I don't have to. Reread the NPOV guidelines, statements at wikipedia need not be true, but simply must be veifiable. Which the accepted position, the one you oppose, is. I have restored the cited, verifiable fact, I have warned you again on your talk page, and I encourage you to edit in more constructive ways. If you feel you should report these happenings, by all means do so. I will do so myself when my warnings run their course. -- SECisek 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Secisek prefers "verifiable" and untrue to verifiable and true. I am perfectly happy with using the actual text from C&C, which is in no way my own interpretation.--71.179.100.71 14:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so it is out in the open, I started this whole mess on 12 April 2007 - see (diff) - when I was trying to understand the differences in the various names used and discovered the pdf for the 'Constitutions and canons (2006)'. At that time, the debate centered around The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America which was not understood to be a corporate name. I apologize for opening pandora's box. The good news though is that once all the evils of the world had escaped, Hope remained in the box. So there still remains Hope for the TEC page. Good editing to everyone. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Clariosophic's version is fine with me.--71.179.100.71 00:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is the current version, it is also wrong. I took over a week away from this article to think it over and I have concluded that you are right - I do prefer "verifiable" text - seeing as it is policy here at WP. I have again restored same. Please present a secondary or tertiary source that supports your position and do not remove cited text unless you want to be accusesed of vandalism.

The addition of the word "still" in the lead makes the desperation of your position very clear. -- SECisek 19:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Episcopal Church

IP editor 72.81.218.211 and72.81.247.125 (and maybe also edited from 71.127.159.171 and 155.104.37.17). What is there to say? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected and cited. Removal or reversion of this cited material will be reported as vandalism by me. Add other POVs if you must, but the current version is verifiable and would pass a FAC. -- SECisek 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society

"The full legal name of the national church corporate body is the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America"

I'm unconvinced by this. It seems pretty clear from Canon 3 that this is the name of a separate organisation, with the same membership as the church. "The Constitution of the said Society, which was incorporated by an act of the Legislature of the State of New York, as from time to time amended, is hereby amended and established so as to read as follows". Can anyone offer a justification for the assertion that this is the proper name for the 'corporate body' of the church itself? TSP 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what to rely on, other than an interpretation of the canons, but the DFMS is the legally incorporated nonprofit organization, while the Episcopal Church is purely ecclesiastical. The presiding bishop is the president of the DFMS and every member of the church is a member of DFMS. Are they separate organizations? I suppose, but only in that one is a legal corporation and the other is not. I think to say that DFMS is the "corporate body" of the Episcopal Church is correct. --InkQuill 19:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if the name of the DMFS was instead "Episcopal Church Inc." if it would raise the same question? Maybe, but that's basically what it is. --InkQuill 19:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
My reading of the sitation is that the TEC is an unincorporated body; and there also exists an incorporated body, the DFMS, with the same membership. The canons seem quite clear that they are defining a body called the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, also known as The Episcopal Church; taking time out in Canon 3 to also amend the statutes of that separate society, the DFMS. To me, it's a little confusing to say that DFMS is "the full legal name of the national church corporate body"; it's a full legal name attached to a corporate body with the same membership as the unincorporated body that is the TEC, but legally distinct. Either body could in theory cease to exist without the other doing so. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, though. Perhaps it's just that I don't find 'corporate body' an especially clear term. TSP 02:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
If the DFMS ceased to exist, the Episcopal Church would have no legal status. It would still be an ecclesiastical body, but could not operate as a nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. If the Episcopal Church ceased to exist, the DFMS would have no reason for being. It would be a legal corporation without a purpose. --InkQuill 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As above, I believe InkQuill to be correct. -- SECisek 19:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

InkQuill knows of what InkQuill speaks! :-) --InkQuill 22:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the sentence in dispute which came about because a long gone editor insisted that DMFS was the name of the church. Full stop. Took a bit of effort to realize one name was simply the incorporated body and TEC is the name which the church for at least a generation has chosen to call itself. Anyway, it seems fine to me. Someone should e-mail the PR people at the TEC and have this posted on their FAQ page. It would make all of this nonsense go away...except for the conspiracy theorists and those who don't know their patron saint from St. George. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 19:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. After the above discussion, in which SECisek agreed that it is correct that DFMS is the legal name of the corporation otherwise known as the Episcopal Church, SECisek then makes a bunch of changes, changing the agreed wording to say that "the Episcopal Church" is the corporate body! What's going on? --InkQuill 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks to me like Secisek inadvertantly reverted to an earlier version of the page while making a minor change. I've reverted the edit for now. Certainly some bits of the edit (changing an image from an SVG to a JPG, uncommenting a reference to a deleted image) seem to clearly be mistakes from a purely technical viewpoint. TSP 02:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have NO idea what happened there what so ever. I was removing a delete category, perhaps I was looking at an old version of the page. -- SECisek 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this even the place to discuss the corporate body? I have never even heard of outside of here? -- SECisek 07:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Listcruft

I removed the following as unhelpful:

List of colleges and seminaries affiliated with the Episcopal Church

I created its own article. Thoughts? --SECisek 09:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Membership

Wassupwestcoast, why are you reverting my changes regarding membership? The current statement that membership is flat for the last few decades, with no ASA discussion (far better indicator) and people removing discussion of age trends is highly biased. Even pro-TEC folks don't believe this distorted view. There can be no doubt that we have shrunk. The only question is how much and what is the most accurate measure. --User:ReasonandRevelation 21:56, 12 September 2007

I'm the one who reverted, mostly on the basis of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy you made in connecting the drop in membership since 2003 with the election of Gene Robinson. Someone could probably show a drop in membership since 2001 too; should we connect that drop in membership with 9/11? Or the drop in membership since 2000 with the presidency of George W. Bush? —Angr 22:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
User:ReasonandRevelation, the reference you provided is already referenced in the text (Ref.57) and it is quoting old data. Please look at Ref 55 to 59. There was a dip in 2003 that was recovered by 2005. This might be a statistical fluke or represent a recovery. "The Christian Century" article of Nov 2006 - see [1]- gives a count for active membership of 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 [2] 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 [3] - and countered by a group called Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh - see [4]. I think we should keep the membership issue to a minimum. The latest numbers do suggest that the numbers are flat. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 23:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a steep decline in membership during the '60s and into the '70s as with most mainline Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. This is mentioned and referenced. Does anyone equate this with the civil rights movement? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Church of England first used Sunday Attendance in the census of 30 March 1851 and it has been criticized by methodologists ever since. For example, does a change in Average Sunday Attendance (ASA) simply mean a change in frequency of church attendance? In the life of a church, active membership could remain flat while its Average Sunday Attendance goes down as members opt to attend only twice a month. Should many opt to come three times a month, the Average Sunday Attendance increases and yet the total active membership will not have changed. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 00:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand your points, but even the most ardent pro-TEC supporters like Louie Crew acknowledge that TEC has hemorrhaged members over the last 40 years and TEC itself admits drops since 2003, as my links (and the links previously posted) pointed out. While there may be an argument that there is more to the story, the current discussion of membership is completely biased in favor of TEC (and I am an Episcopalian, but I am pretty tired of the spin).

Shoot, this year alone the Virginia secessions are larger than several dozen whole dioceses. I’d like to see some support for the proposition that it has been flat since 2003. And it’s not a post hoc fallacy to suppose that it was partly based on Gene Robinson. His consecration is the single most disruptive thing to happen to our church in my lifetime. I have never been in a Wikipedia edit war, and I admit that I am not that committed, but it is a shame that ideology trumps objectivity. The edits I made were incredibly cautious and arguably don't even begin to tell the story of the exodus that has happened in the last 3.5 years.

I don't know where you are getting your stats from, but just look at TEC's own self-reported stats: 846,000 in 2002 (the year before Robinson), and 787,000 ASA in 2005. Conspicuously absent from TEC is official reporting from 2006, even though we're almost done with 2007, and, as noted above, 2007 has witnessed a hemorrhage of whole churches leaving. Furthermore, this is on the back of major declines in attendance in the last 40 years.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/Average_Sunday_Attendance_1995-05_by_Domestic_Diocese.pdf

It's not accurate to chalk these major numbers changes to methodology. Also relevant to my church's story is the alarming increase in the average age, now somewhere around 57.

Respectfully,--ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation (talk • contribs) 18:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If Robinson's consecration is the most disruptive thing to happen to the ECUSA in your lifetime, you must be too young to remember the issues of the ordination of women and the 1979 prayer book. There's nothing wrong with discussing the numbers, but only a statistical analysis will tell you whether the change since 2003 is statistically significant or not (and it would have to be cited; we can't do our own statistical analyses here), and we would have to cite someone else's claim that the membership loss is due to Robinson. Interpreting the numbers ourselves is original research. —Angr 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, OR must be avoided. Do not speculate anything that cannot be cited. -- SECisek 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

All I have done is cite pure statistics. I think that yall are coming up with methodological shortcomings to justify yourp position. It is equally highly suspect that TEC has had flat membership in the last 40 years and conspicuously biased to let that be the whole story. If you want to add to the tale, do so, but it is virtually beyond debate that we have lost members and churches in alarming numbers in the last 3.5 years--TEC ITSELF admits that.

I note you have not contradicted the stats I provided above (nor the links that were several times deleted).

For the record, Robinson's consecration and the aftermath far outstrips anything that occurred 30 years ago. Far more people and churches leaving, and the Anglican Communion on the brink of collapse. At any rate, if you are more adamant than I about this Wikipedia article, you will win the edit war, but that does not make it right. If you think that 2003 is an inappropriate date from which to analyze, you should participate in telling a balanced story for the last few decades. I have made very cautious changes that have been edited out many times. This is why Wikipedia is a propaganda tool for controverial topics. --ReasonandRevelation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReasonandRevelation (talk • contribs) 14:08, 17 September 2007

Do you seriously think the membership numbers of ECUSA and number of churches in it wouldn't have decreased if Robinson hadn't been consecrated? Or that the Anglican Communion would be any less "on the brink of collapse"??? The current crisis is way bigger than one little bishop in New Hampshire. —Angr 14:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
User:ReasonandRevelation, two points. Point one: no one doubts that TEC membership has dropped substantially in the last 40 years. It says so in the article. Since about 2000, active baptized membership has been remarkably flat - numerous references support this claim. They contradict your assertion. Point two: the ordination of women has had serious and long lasting effects on the TEC. Parishes left the TEC. Members left the TEC. Dioceses and Provinces in the Anglican Communion have been out of communion with the TEC for thirty years. The ordination of women has already split the communion. No one much talks about this now. Bishop Schori recently made comments that reflects both these points - see US Primate taks a 'long, calm view"


and


Note Bishop Schori has a PhD in science and worked as a scientist. I think of all of us she probably has the best grasp of numbers and statistics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 15:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We are getting into an editing war in this section with flat liners versus precipitous decliners. Perhaps we need to expand this section to lay out some basic stats and then give the various interpretations of what these stats mean. clariosophic 20:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)clariosophic 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about doing this before: it would involve lots of graphs and charts. The Episcopal Church's fourth bishop was so convinced that the TEC would go extinct by 1820 that he gave up and retired. The real precipitous decline was in the 1780s and another decline in the 1920s. The problem with all these church numbers is the 'anchoring problem'. The TEC hit a Mt Everest peak in the 1950s and all the discussion since then has been anchored to those numbers. And it isn't just the TEC, all the mainline Protestant churches showed a huge spike in the 1950s compared to the 1920s. Essentially, the US experienced two Great Awakenings a century apart and everything has not glistened like those golden eras since. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an editing war going on. It is between those who can read data honestly and those who obfuscate. When an editor quotes Hadaway, the director of research for pecusa and then balks at his characterization of the drop in membership as "precipitous," we have a bias problem. The 2.2 number is from Hadaway. The description "precipitous: is also from Hadaway. The escalating losses in 2003-2005 is from official pecusa documents. Let the truth be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel (talk • contribs) 02:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I can read numbers very well. Please read this, the Episcopal Church's most recent membership stats as of Jan 2007 of 2005 parochial reports found here [5] at the Episcopal Church's website and see if the "total active baptized members" is not 2,369,477. Hadaway and the Christian Century article are using older numbers. Hadaway's analysis is from 2004. The Christian Century is from 2006. The latest numbers are from Jan 2007. The difference of 2,369,477 - 2,205,376 = 164,101 which is about 50 000 greater than the loss between 2005 and 2002. Thus, there are swings up and down over the short term which indicates a flat or plateau trend. When the new numbers come out in a few months perhaps it will be down or up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 02:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The latest available figures should be used, the article you insist on basing this section on is now outdated. The fact you keep referring to the church as pecusa, rather than its modern title of TEC is interesting. Don't keep changing the article until you achive consensus on this talk page, and bear in mind the 3 revert rule, which you've probably already broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your selective use of the 3 revert rule is interesting. My first edit was removed because I didn't cite sources. When I cited sources that were already being used, my edit was still removed. What you call dated is more recent information than what was cited previously for the 2.3 million number and my figure is from the director of research for pecusa (btw, I use pecusa because it is the official name and it identifies the sectarian nature of recent innovations. You may not remember the lawsuit that 815 filed or threatened to file against Bp. Wantland in order to retain this name). The fact that you are clinging to outdated numbers speaks volumes. This will all be settled when pecusa releases the 2006 figures. This argument is not about accuracy, because if it was you would acknowledge the most recent figures. It is about maintaining a position not founded in fact - that position is that pecusa is not losing thousands of members a year. pecusa is losing thousands of members a year and your attempts to cover this up will ultimately fail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyseel (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually you will find that I have warned both you and Wassupwestcoast for 3rr, and the only other action I have taken is to request protection of the article (which has been declined) so that we thrash out a consensus here, rather than fighting over it in the article itself.
Taking a more detailed look at the various sources being used, it seems that one problem is that the Christian Century article is using the figures strictly for the US, the figure currently in the article also includes membership of TEC outside the territorial limits i.e. Taiwan, Europe etc - which is of course the scope of the Wikipedia article. The main problem with your edit is actually the addition of "Since 2003, the membership losses of 115,000 demonstrate that a slide into new decline has begun.", which seems to be your own personal take on the article - it is not stated anywhere in the article that this is expected to be an ongoing trend.
We need to clarify what the stats used in the Wikipedia article actually represent — and it seems to me that the overall total figures are the most suitable for this venue, and since it seems that falls quoted in the New Century article do indeed post-date the previous TEC report, then there is an argument for mentioning that "precipitous" fall — but we cannot draw any ongoing trend from that yet, the fall may continue, or equally the figures may stabilise, we're still too close up to things to tell. I've made two minor corrections to the article as it stands, but to move us on, I'd suggest the following as a compromise, accepting the precipitous loss, but placing it better in context (I feel). I've also removed the long quote from Hadaway, because in light of the subsequent numbers it's a little out of place, and invites comment.
"Total membership of active baptized members is exactly 2,369,477 (this is the figure for all dioceses, the figure for the United States itself is 2,205,376) as counted by the Episcopal Church from all submitted parochial reports for 2005 - the latest year available.[1]
In recent years many mainline denominations have experienced a decline in membership.[2] Once changes in how membership is counted are taken into consideration, the Episcopal Church's membership numbers were broadly flat throughout the 1990s and into the first couple of years of the 21st century.[1][3][4][5][6] However, figures show a "precipitous" fall of almost 115,000 members for the years 2003–5, largely as the result of conflict of the various controversies engulfing the Church.[7]
  1. ^ a b From 2005 Parochial Reports. Source: The General Convention Office as of January 2007 Retrieved 25 October 2007
  2. ^ Mainline Protestant churches no longer dominate
  3. ^ Is the Episcopal Church Growing (or Declining)? by by C. Kirk Hadaway Director of Research, The Episcopal Church Center, retrieved 2007-10-25
  4. ^ Q&A Context, analysis on Church membership statistics, retrieved 2007-10-25
  5. ^ Episcopal Fast Facts: 2005, retrieved 2007-10-25
  6. ^ Overview of Membership, Attendance and Giving Trends in the Episcopal Church, retrieved 2007-10-25
  7. ^ "Episcopal membership loss 'precipitous'", The Christian Century, 14 November 2006, retrieved 2007-10-27

"

I've also taken advantage of the changes to rationalise the referencing slightly, using named references where a reference is used more than once - the New Century article was actually being referenced in the original wording too. David Underdown 16:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you David Underdown for taking the time to thrash this out. I like your wording and don't disagree. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It is agreeable to me. clariosophic 20:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. -- SECisek 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Membership 2006

An anon has posted some data for 2006, I've reverted initially, mostly becuase the link they had posted was broken (though I have managed to track down what they were trying to put in). Also the way it was included ratehr messed up the existing referencing, by adding the calculated drop on to the figures previously reported in the Chrisitan Century report, without adding new references to that para, which is rather misleading.

The doc they were trying to reference was this http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_91421_ENG_HTM.htm which itself references http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/GC_2006_membership_and_ASA.pdf and http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/2005-2006_Statistical_Totals_for_the_Episcopal_Church.pdf what's really confusing me though is that the 2005 figures given in all these documents (2,372,008), from which they've derived the figures for a further major fall (mostly due to events in Virginia) don't correspond to the previously published figures for 2005 (2,369,477) which we already have in the article. Anyone any ideas as to how we can reconcile them? David Underdown 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Our own ECUSA WikiProject?

Isn't it time for us in the ECUSA to have our own WikiProject or at least our own subproject? clariosophic 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am quite happy working in the existing Anglican project. What would be the point? It would just be another user box to slap on my user page. -- SECisek 18:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt there are enough 'obsessive' editors to make a ECUSA-specific project work. There are very few Wiki Projects that work very well and most of those seem to involve masses of twelve year olds: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter. This is not to disparage the Harry Potter fans. I am involved with the project. Wikipedia has skewed demographics.
So pop culture and gamer culture topics attract a lot of effort. Anglicanism attracts some effort. Horticulture and gardening, which I tried to resurrect as a project, attracts no one at all. I suspect ECUSA would be between Anglicanism and Horticulture. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I've gotten the message, so I'll just forget it. clariosophic 18:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

History: Church Establishment in Colonial America

I question the statement about Massachusetts Bay Colony 1620. It seems to forget about the Plymouth Colony, which was settled in 1620. Massachusetts Bay came later. Massachusetts Bay annexed the Plymouth Colony in 1691. clariosophic 09:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Always be bold. -- SECisek 19:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Editor clariosophic, I thought the puritans who landed at Plymouth had left the Church of England - as opposed to those puritans who did not and fought the English civil war - so would it be fair to place their history into the history of the TEC. I can see it in the history of the Church of England, though. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 17:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What I said was that the 1620 date is wrong, because it is the date of the Plymouth Colony and as we all know they were nonconformists. The Massachusetts Bay Colony did not exist until 1629 or 1630. The question is when did the C of E become established in Massachusetts? It certainly wasn't 1620 and probably wasn't even 1630. I do know that Newton, the Boston suburb I grew up in began in 1664 as a Congregational theocracy with the minister and elders constituting both the religious and civil governments. See East Parish Burying Ground. King's Chapel, 1686, was the first Anglican church in Boston and probably in Massachusetts. I am growing tired of being bold because when I am someone tells me I have a POV. clariosophic 22:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Tell them you are correct and cite an accepted source to prove it. If you can fix it, do so. -- SECisek 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

ECUSA Template

I am again adding the ECUSA Province Template with links the 9 provinces. There seems to be some controversy over why it starts with Province 1. There are 9 templates and they are all interlinked. I could put in all 9 in tiers as they do in Great Britain and Ireland. Isn't it simpler just to have one template? Which one it starts with is immaterial, so why not do it numerically starting with 1. Without the template, there is no easy way to navigate the provinces from this article. Please do not delete again without some discussion and a consensus. clariosophic 23:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this template is somehow the best one. I think the natural reaction of a reader would be to question what it has to do with the article itself. Why not just create a template with links to all the provinces? I've not been following this particular conflict, so I don't know if this solution has previously been proposed or not. Still, it seems like a much better idea than just linking randomly to one of the provinces. Esrever 23:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
These templates are the only ones. There is no umbrella template. They do work. If you notice each template has the dioceses in its province at the top with links at the bottom to the other 8 provinces. As I said I could tier all 9. If you would like to see tiering in action, see Church of England clariosophic 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, now there's a template with all the provinces in it (I know this because I just slapped one together). What do you think of it? Esrever 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's great. Many thanks for your creation. clariosophic 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Organized after Revolution.-POV

I undid a revision to the second sentence of the intro which added: when it was forced to break with the Church of England on penalty of treason. No reference was given. This statement seems to assume that all Anglicans in the 13 colonies were Loyalists and not Patriots.

Please do reinsert this language without further discussion and consensus. clariosophic 14:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)clariosophic 14:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably not all members of the congragtions would have been loyalists, but clergy would certianly at some piont have sworn the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown - this was what caused the difficulties. David Underdown 14:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll provide references but the statement is true. The Oath of Allegiance to the Crown was treasonous. The Church of England in the American colonies were treasonous. There really were incidents where the militia were in Church of England churches with bayonets menacing the congregations. There is a recorded story of Charles Inglis when he was rector of Holy Trinity New York prayed for King George III while George Washington was in the congregation and the church was surrounded. Anyway, I'll provide the stories with references to liven up the narrative. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 14:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the intro is the place to get into all of this. Why not put it in History: The Church in the American Republic (1789–present)? clariosophic 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll put the text in the body of the article no problem. However, the treasonous bits should go in the lead. It makes the TEC seem more exciting...like a real Western church :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Anglican Realighnment and the Continuing Anglican Movement

Why is there little to no mention of Anglican realignment and the Continuing Anglican Movement on this page? There is a lengthy discussion about the controversies but not one mention of the Continuing Anglican Movement, which came about as a result of these controversies. And there is only a brief mention of Anglican realignment: "Since the ratification of Robinson as bishop, some clergy and lay members have left the Episcopal Church (see Anglican realignment)." While I don't think there should be a lengthy or thorough discussion of these movements in this article, I cannot understand why so much weight would be given to the controversy, without some mention of what happened as a result of the controversy. I am sure these movements are, in themselves, controversial but that doesn't mean they are not relevant and should be excluded from this page. The Continuing Anglican Movement itself has approximately 670 Anglican parishes across approximately 20 affiliated bodies of churches.

User:Secisek stated, in response to my edit, including these movements in the article, that: "article is about Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and "They are in the See also section already, which is where they belong in this article." I do not dispute what the article is about, and while I respect that this was not a complete argument, I reject the argument that any mention of these movements belong in the See also section. I would appreciate an open discussion on this point by editors who favor neither viewpoint. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There are extensive articles about both the Continuing Anglican Movement and Anglican Realignment. As the creator of the nav boxes for both series of articles, I desire to see more coverage of both developments of Anglicanism.
That said, this article isn't the place to do it. If the article was called Anglican tradition in the USA that would be one thing, but this article is about a particular church - The Episcopal Church, U.S.A. - and it should maintian focus there. Again, link to both movements, but they are, by their very definition, beyond the scope of this article.
I also feel undue weight is given the controversies as is and that is because we inflated the History section for a subarticle about a month ago and we never got around to condensing it here. -- SECisek (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sweetmoose6 (talk · contribs). Your comments cover familiar ground. If you go way back through the endless edits of this article, you'll discover periods when there was a disproportionate amount of text on the realignment. Most of this text went to building up articles like Anglican realignment. This article - Episcopal Church in the United States of America - would probably be a much better article if the many aspects and the two hundred year history of the TEC were covered without any one thing be given undue weight: the text being no more than , say, about two or three thousand words. I've just checked - and if the estimate is correct - the present article is in the eight thousand word range. To put this in perspective, a three thousand word article would have - at most - about a hundred words on the issues surrounding the Anglican realignment movement. The current Recent Controversy section has about 1,500 words: all of the topics are already covered under sub-articles. I agree with Secisek (talk · contribs) in that the Episcopal Church in the United States of America article is about the church and not any one thing making headlines today. Wikipedia article must avoid recentism and exceptionalism. The Anglican realignment articles is the place for a more thorough expanding of the topic or any of the other articles about the Continuing Anglican Movement. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

T REAL EC

Could someone please repost some of the waning membership information on the discussion page? I realize the large quantity of comments on the page needed to be archived, but the reality is that when people want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy, they look to the discussion page. Right now, all I see is a comment or two from a few people who seem extremely dedicated to concealing information they deem controversial. Hectard (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, who's in charge of deciding when archiving happens? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectard (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you're right. No one attends TEC churches anymore. Within months it'll all be gone. Please, we are trying to write an encylopedia article on the TEC, not further anyone's agenda over recent events. No one is concealing anything but neither are we promoting anything. All the past discussion is but one mouse click away: see top of this page under 'archives'. Wikipedia is an all volunteer project: no one is the boss of anyone. Common sense and the actual time and effort of an editor determines when archiving happens. Why not write an article about the TEC from 1783 to today in about three thousand words that encompasses the church's history, doctrine, controversies, successes, failures and contributions across that entire span of history with good and reliable citations? In other words, write the ancyclopedia article that should be here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Threads on talk pages can and should be archived when the discussion grow cold. There has been no discussion about membership figures here since last October. The talk pages exist to discuss improvements of the articles, not as a place for people who "want to know what's really happening with an institution which may be embroiled in a controversy". How do you feel the article conceals information? -- SECisek (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If an organisation has to play games with membership figures, then we all know what that means! Seriously; how can an article not indicate the major facts about an organisation of this kind; how many actually belong to it, who many did belong, and what the trend on that is, where it matters?? Roger Pearse 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Sueing the parishoners

Not a bad article, but I couldn't avoid noticing that the article reads as if it was part of a press release from TEC, when it comes to the controversies. "Taking the first steps to maintain their claim to..." is a curious euphemisim for bishops sueing their own parishes. They have in fact sued the lay volunteer members of those parishes, and also are trying to seize properties which built before TEC existed or built by the people now being sued. These actions have been copiously documented online, and seem to have created enormous bitterness. But they are facts. Virtue Online documents the letters, the lawsuits, and the results. Some of the lawsuits they won, some they lost.

I can understand that TEC doesn't like the bad publicity that such oppressive actions creates. But if TEC is happy to do these things, then the article needs to say so, without undue deference to TEC. TEC doesn't *have* to run lawsuits against people who can't stand what it has become. It is a *choice*, after all. Shouldn't Wikipedia document that choice? Roger Pearse 12:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, TEC has the legal obligation to sue, since it is obligated to attempt to maintain the donations for the purposes for which it was legally donated, which was for the use of the Episcopal Church.
And now, you've changed the article to say they are suing "the congregations" which is not correct. They are suing, as you correctly note here, certain former episcopalians, neither "their own parishes" nor the "congregations" themselves. to have such a rankly partisan statement here, including a reference to David Virtue (!) as if he were a fair and neutral source, and then pretend in the revision log that this is "NPOV" is, frankly, dishonest. Tb (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, I can see that you support their actions in suing, rather than deny that they are doing so. (That, of course, is your right). But the point is that this is what they are doing. Shouldn't we say so?
I can see that you violently object to David Virtue (you seem to have misunderstood why I referenced his site -- as a source of data on such actions), and seemingly equally violently endorse the actions of the church officials. Again this is your right; but should this POV be inflicted on Wikipedia? This is a partisan position, whether right or wrong. Wikipedia needs neutrality. The claim that those who are being sued are not the congregations is pretty strange (quibbles that they ceased to be the congregations at the moment that they voted to leave are for lawyers), but by all means find some other phrase which is NPOV.
It would be better throughout to label the claims of the various parties as such, I think.User:Roger Pearse 08:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
He's not a fair source, I'm afraid. But there are plenty of neutral sources for the views in question. I've changed your recent edit slightly to make clear the difference between ownership and a trust, this has been bugging me about the paragraph for a long time. I trust the current version is ok. (Oh, and the point is that they aren't suing *their own* congregations, which is what you said. You can read the caption on the case: they aren't suing a congregation, and even if you think they are anyhow, it isn't *their own* congregation since the people they are suing are no longer Episcopalians.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tb (talk • contribs) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Lest we forget, this sort fo thing isn't entirely unique to the US [6]. David Underdown (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Episcopal_Church_(United_States)/Archive_3"