Talk:Reformed Episcopal Church

Wouldn't it be a good idea to discuss how the REC ended up with parishes in England to begin with, if this edit is to be properly understood? And how did they also get parishes in Germany and other non-U.S. countries? Were these a result of missionary work with indigenous peoples or a result of large numbers of expatriate REC members gathering abroad?--Bhuck (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good subject to cover in the article. Chonak (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent start to an expansion in this direction. I would still be quite interested to learn more about how their parishes in non-English-speaking countries came into being. Is there a way we can rephrase the sentence "Cridge was consecrated a bishop for the REC in 1876" to avoid the passive voice (such as saying "Bishops so-and-so and what's-his-name consecrated Cridge a bishop for the REC Diocese of the Great White North in 1876", for example?)--Bhuck (talk) 10:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, did the 1873 prayerbook have prayers for the President and Congress as well as Queen Victoria, so that it could be used both north and south of the border, as well as in the UK?--Bhuck (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The 1873 Book appears to be the 1785 Book, reprinted and with the addition of the Declaration of Principles. A copy is available on archive.org. Chonak (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it would seem that Canadian Reformed Episcopalians also either prayed for the U.S. Congress and the President (but not the Queen or Parliament), or else they deviated from the prayerbook in the way that we in the Convocation of American Churches in Europe sometimes do, adapting the text to their foreign circumstances.--Bhuck (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

User:JohnKeble added this description of the REC's doctrinal position to the lead section of the article on Feb 8: The REC holds to a historical faith grounded in the English Reformation and grounds its doctrine in the Word of God, the three historical creeds, the first four ecumenical councils, the Thrity-nine Articles of Religion (in their 1801 form), and the Declaration of Principles understood in terms of their historical context.

A few points:

• JohnKeble has a good idea in wanting to add some indication of the REC's doctrinal position in the lead. On the other hand, the description above seems unclear because it is so long. Is it possible to describe the REC's doctrinal orientation in a word or two? Is the REC's doctrinal stance "Reformed"? "Evangelical"? "Anglican"? Or something else?
• Speaking of the Word of God is proper in a church document, but not in an encyclopedia which takes a neutral observer point of view about Christian doctrine. Chonak (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have expanded on JohnKeble's description of the REC doctrinal position and used that as the basis for a new section, bringing together his material, the Declaration of Principles, and the material regarding "Doctrine on ministry". Chonak (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The REC indeed could be characterized as Reformed, Evangelical, Liturgical, Apostolic, Anglican, etc. These are all words they use in their own materials. The doctrinal position came directly from the REC canons. It is appropriate in an encylopedia when it is referring to a church or religious group from their own documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnKeble (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for joining in here, JohnKeble. It can be tricky to use a church's own self-description. A church's doctrinal affirmation expresses its point of view, whereas Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written with a neutral point of view. That requires either putting the doctrinal affirmation in quotation marks or modifying the sentence to preserve NPOV (which is what I did in this case). The aim isn't to downplay the strong point of view, but to make clear who holds it. Chonak (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I had a problem with the word "historical" in describing the faith, as this seemed vague--it did not explain whether it imputed that other faiths were ahistorical, or whether it meant that the faith was not up-to-date or contemporary, or just what exactly was meant. So I modified the wording slightly, also in a few other points, while hopefully retaining the basic meaning.--Bhuck (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

On February 8 User:JohnKeble added an overview of the REC BCP's origin and current status, deleting the previous historic material, along with the references cited. However, the older and more detailed version of this history is worth keeping, as it contains specific description of the changes and the controversies involved. I have retrieved that content from the article history and restored it, integrating it with the overview (still unsourced, unfortunately) added on February 8. Editors with relevant material are invited to expand on the development of the REC BCP, particularly since 1873. Chonak (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The 1963 BCP is available on-line (see External Links); this should help editors document the REC BCP's development. Chonak (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

In February, I performed a merger, bringing information on the various REC seminaries into this article, and suppressed the separate articles on the four small institutions.

It appears that editor Ad.minster has restored the separate articles for the seminaries and editor Tb tried to re-implement their suppression. They posted some comments on my talk page, including the suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of Tb -- which is not true, to the best of my knowledge.

Let's pursue the discussion here so that other interested editors can participate.

• First: as far as I can tell, most of the seminaries are not notable, with the exception of the RES. If somebody can provide independently published sources to demonstrate their notability, that would be a reasonable solution. But at present I think that the separate pages for Cranmer, Cummins, and Andrewes would not be able to withstand a normal proposal for deletion (through the AfD process).

• As a compromise, would you please look at the REC treatment of the seminaries as of 18:47, 8 February 2009? That's got substantially more information than the REC article has now -- before user JohnKeble cut most of it out. Would it be agreeable to restore that version of the seminaries' description, but toss the individual articles on the non-notable seminaries? Chonak (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer that the individual articles be merged in. I imagine that RES would survive AfD, and the others would not, which would result in a weird situation. It seems clearer to me to simply list them in the REC article with as much information as seemse relevant. I have no problem with expanding the REC section if the individual articles are merged into it, which is my preference. Tb (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• User Ad.minster has been blocked for 72 hours, so he won't be able to answer my suggestion above right away. Would other editors be willing to hold off any substantial changes on the seminaries for a few days, for the sake of conciliation? Chonak (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be inappropriate to proceed without him having the chance to explain his point of view. Tb (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No kidding! I was wondering why peace had settled over the area. I would favor merge over deletion. -- Secisek (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants deletion. The alternatives seem to be merge-with-redirects, or separate articles. Tb (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps a single seperate article Seminaries of the REC? -- Secisek (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirects sound like a better alternative to outright deletion of the individual seminary articles. As to whether the seminaries appear in this article or in a separate article about REC seminaries, I don't really care one way or the other. Separate full-fledged articles on the more minor seminaries, however, seems to me to be overkill.--Bhuck (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

We had the redirects in place in February after the merger. Chonak (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Getting back to work on this issue: I like Secisek's idea; I suppose it amounts to merging the three minor seminary articles into RES and renaming that as "Seminaries of the Reformed Episcopal Church". Should we go through the merge-proposal process again, tagging the articles, or just ask for "favor/oppose" comments here? Chonak (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have listed the articles for Andrewes, Cranmer, and Cummins on AfD. Chonak (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that listing them is necessary. We can merge without a listing. Tb (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm expecting that the consensus will end up being "merge". If so, I propose we re-implement my February version of the merged content as a starting point. Chonak (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• The result from the AfD was merge for all three articles, so that's now done. Chonak (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups within the Reformed Episcopal Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

why? it seems quite clear it is a Protestant-leaning group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.62.183 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user 98.24.239.249 (talk, contributions) added about a dozen changes to the article over the weekend 31 July-1 August 2010, mostly in an argumentative and skeptical vein. He changed expressions such as "the REC reports" to "the REC claims", and added commentary about perceived inconsistencies in the positions of persons or of the REC.

Wikipedia aims to be a neutral compilation of verifiable, established facts. Its guidelines include the principle of keeping a neutral tone in articles (WP:NPOV) and the need to document assertions with citations from reliable, independent published sources (WP:SOURCES). These principles aimed at promoting the encyclopedic quality of articles in WP. New editors, if they are not familiar with these objectives, are invited to explore the subject through reading the article WP:BRIEF and exploring the links from there. -- Chonak (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)