Talk:Episcopal Church (United States)/Archive 1

A note on naming

The Constitution of the Episcopal Church lists only two names:

• The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America
• The Episcopal Church

It is quite understandable to feel the latter to be awkward, especially given the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Episcopal Church of Mexico, and the other like named provinces in the Anglican Communion. However, unlike all those others, its jurisdiction is not limited to just one country; the Episcopal Church has long included a substantial number of non-US dioceses.

At this point, basically nobody but nobody calls it the "Protestant Episcopal" anything, and the name is retained for historical reasons alone. Indeed, a primary reason behind adding the name "The Episcopal Church" as an official name was precisely because it's not NPOV to say "Protestant", and the word irks many Anglicans

And, since it gets to decide its own name, it chooses not to piss off its own members outside the US, rather than worry about non-members in other Anglican churches around the world. It's just one of those quaint little weirdnessess that is so common in Anglicanism. :)

I would be happy to add a disambiguator in parentheses, but only if it's accurate: and "United States" just wouldn't be accurate.

--Tb 23:38 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

There's nothing that says we have to have organizations under thier constitutional names; we have them under the most common, most recognizable, less ambigous name available. Episcopal Church, USA and ECUSA are used by the church it self on its website, I see no reason we can't use one of those here. The Episcopal Church could be the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Phillipine Episcopal Church, or the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem & the Middle East which has parishes in thirteen countries. - Efghij 00:37 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

We should have organizations either under their consitutional names, or under a correct descriptive name. "Episcopal Church, USA" is, unfortunately, neither. (Frankly, if it weren't likely to raise hackles, I would vote for just such a change of its name.) I added a reference to the problem on the page itself, which seems like a good idea; if you can think of ways to improve it, that would be great too.

The church's website is (unfortunately) incorrect. alas, they are trying to solve a hard problem. As I said, I have no objection to a disambiguation, but it should be *correct* and not merely an oversimplification. The issue isn't just that the Episcopal Church is in more than one country; as you point out, so is the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East. But note that that latter name correctly describes the broad spread of that church. If it were called "The Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and Egypt", it would be very wrongly titled. Similarly, "USA" is just not an adequate descriptor of the name of the Episcopal Church. If there were a good disambiguator, we could add it in parentheses. I agree completely that we should try to do this. But it needs to be correct. The fact is that the actual reality (out there in the world) is confusingly ambiguous, and while we might prefer a more ordered reality (and it would be easier to describe in the encyclopedia!) we can't declare the reality changed just so that it's easier for us to describe.

It's a similar problem to the adjective "American"; regardless of whether it is or is not unambiguous, it's the adjective we've got. We don't rename "The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America" just because the name is ambiguous between the continent and the country.

--Tb 00:45 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It just strikes me as rather nitpicky to say that we can't call this Episcopal Church in the United States of America or Episcopal Church, USA or ECUSA because the church includes dioceses outside the US, when the church's own constitutional name includes "... in the United States of America". I agree that this may not be the best discription, but it used by the church itself so there is no reason that we can't use it. - Efghij 01:54 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

Well, we could certainly pick parts out of the two different names and fuse them together into a new name. I think that, particularly with official organizations, part of the job of an Encyclopedia is to give the correct name. Which is exactly what's going on here. Certainly all those other possibilities should (and do) have redirects. I welcome any suggestions for how to disambiguate it *accurately*.

The problem is that of the two names, the first is now disparaged, and the second is, well, it. And was explicitly and deliberately chosen to not have "United States" in the name.

The rule of thumb, seems to me, should be: give the correct information, and if it's confusing, explain the confusion. --Tb 02:00 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I suppose it's fine now, the confusing aspects are explained. I changed the example to the Middle East, because I thought that was the Church most likely to be be thought of as the Episcopal Church. (because of the in) - Efghij 02:40 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps it is. It's one of the newest Provinces of the Anglican Communion (at least, with this name). Actually, outside the US, even when "Episcopal" is an official part of the name, the word "Anglican" is more often heard, and I suspect this is true in the Middle East as well. The only substantial exceptions are the Philippines and Scotland, I think. It's also multinational, which makes it a better example too, I think. --Tb 02:42 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It is important to appreciate that just as the Episcopal Church in the USA has several acceptable names, "Scottish Episcopal Church" is not the only name of the episcopal church of Scotland. "Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church of Scotland", "Scottish Episcopal Church", "Episcopal Church in Scotland" are all used. (the last can be found on the title page of the Scottish Book of Common Prayer). More generally, Episcopal can be a synonym for Anglican.

In other words, the Scottish church is not the <Scottish Episcopal> Church, it is the Scottish <Episcopal Church>. Wikipedia users from Scotland should not be faced with an article that says:

'"The Episcopal Church" = (ECUSA)......The "Scottish Episcopal Church" on the other hand can be found (several paragraphs down)... '

So either the title should change or there should be a clear disambiguation paragraph _at the top_. Seeing as Scots are quite aware that theirs is not the only Episcopal Church in the world (is the same true the other way around?), I think the second option is probably more user-friendly. Andrew Yong 08:55, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Noting that National Headquarters at 815 should be there probably, the official name used here is "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America". I agree that one should used the abreviated as the title for the article, however one need not use that to refer to it within other articles as the link to this page is easily altered in appearance, thus one could use ECUSA or plainly the Episcopal Church in reference to this article, just making sure they have ARTICLENAME|ECUSA in their link.

---

I noticed a change in the first sententce (fixing vandalism) that also changed

"The Episcopal Church or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is the American national church of the Anglican Communion."

to

"The Episcopal Church or the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is an American national church of the Anglican Communion." (Emphasis added)

As far as I know, the Anglican Communion only recognizes one institution per nation. For various reasons the choice of article (the/an) is currently very politically charged and keeping NPOV seems to require a decision one way or the other. An official list of members only lists the ECUSA for the United States.

Robwaldo 03:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As of the 2006 General Convention, the official name of this instiution is "The Episcopal Church" abreviated TEC. "in the United States of America" has officially been removed due to the solidification of the IXth province consisting of primarilly central/south american and carribean provinces. One wonders if this should be changed to "The Episcopal Church (TEC)" to reflect their recent official name change. CJJDay 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

new paragraph about the election of a homosexual bishop

Right, is it just me, or does the new paragraph that has been added about the election of a homosexual bishop strike anyone else as seeming superfluous in context? It doesn't fit the flow of the page, and, further, without having mentioned in depth other means by which the Episcopal Church traditionally defines itself on the page (e.g. scripture, reason, tradition; or the Book of Common Prayer) it seems rather strange to devote a paragraph to a simple matter of current events. Besides, Gene Robinson covers the issue fully and within context.

I'm going to take down the paragraph; if anyone disagrees with my reasons, please throw your opinions up here on talk. --Charleschuck 20:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Right, someone has elected to again add a paragraph about Robinson, and either they did not read talk, or felt it unnecessary to state their opinion. Again, I think the issue is of historical importance, but without further historical information to put it in context, I still think it's superfluous. Further, they have covered this in General Convention. Again, if there is any disagreement with my choice, please post your opinions up here. --Charleschuck 03:32, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

recent edit on the BCP.

The source of my recent edit comes directly from the Canon Law of the ECUSA. See Title II, Canon 7, Sec. 6, subsection B: It's reproduced here:

(b). It shall be the duty of the Custodian of the Standard Book of Common Prayer:

1. To arrange for the publication of such proposed revision;
2. To protect, by copyright, the authorized text of such revision, on behalf of the General Convention; which copyright shall be relinquished when such proposed revision or revisions shall have been adopted by the General Convention as an alteration of, or addition to, the Book of Common Prayer;
3. To certify that printed copies of such revision or revisions have been duly authorized by the General Convention, and that the printed text conforms to that approved by the General Convention.

See http://www.mit.edu/~tb/anglican/legal/gc.canons.html. -iHoshie 10:06, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

It's true that the Custodian is responsible for ensuring that the text passed by the General Convention is the text that is published. However, the Custodian is in no way responsible for creating that text; in the case of the 1979 BCP, that happened over the course of 25 years of discussion by liturgical scholars, priests, and lay leaders, and was approved by General Convention. I've removed the sentence for clarification, and will add more information about how the BCP text is decided upon.

00527 14:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of approved translations template

No offence, but why should there be a template of approved translations of the bible on the translation's pages? If a person wants to know which translation are approved by the Episcopal Church, they would search for 'The Episcopal church'. As it is, the pages for several translations (none, I am aware of, are specific to the Episcopal Church) are now cluttered with an ugly template. Are we going add templates for all translations aproved by the Southern Baptist Convention, Latter-Day Saints, Local Church Movement, Watchtower Society, etc? The RSV and KJV would have dozens of little boxes at the bottom.

If there are no objections, I will be removing these soon.

I am the user (hoshie) who added the EPUSA template. Feel free to remove it. @ first, I thought they were the only church that had a list of approved versions, hence the template. From reading I have done, other churches have lists too and as you said the boxes would become crappy after a while. Thanks for spotting this. - 65.184.227.24 10:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Difference with other Christian groups

What is the difference? I know that Episcopalians don't follow the Pope. What else? Do E. believe in the Holy Trinity? Do they celebrate Mass or have a Holy Eucharist? Is there a stress on a particular doctrine, eg. Baptists with baptism, Pentecostals with gifts of the Holy Spirit, etc. Do the preachers, reverrends, etc. have to be celibate? Is there an official Episcopalian stand on abortion, cloning? Can woment be pastors, reverrends, etc.--Jondel 03:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

This link should be helpful [1]. This article and the article on the Anglican Communion should help as well.Rockhopper10r 13:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

To add to that, generally, in Anglican churches, unity comes from practice: all Anglican churches are liturgical churches following some version of the Book of Common Prayer or a derivative of it. In most congregations, Holy Eucharist (sometimes called "mass") is the primary service on Sundays. In Anglicanism, there are three orders of ordained ministry: deacons, priests and bishops. In ECUSA, all three orders are open to women. Celibacy is not required of clergy.Rockhopper10r 22:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a new Episcopalian friend and just want to know how to relate to him.--Jondel 00:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Full Communion

The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are indeed in full communion: [2] Rockhopper10r 9 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)

Multiple cathedrals

Only two dioceses have two full-fledged cathedrals: Iowa and Minnesota. The Diocese of Lexington has a cathedral and a "cathedral domain", which is essentially a chapel at the diocesan conference centre. The Diocese of Pennsylvania has one: Philadelphia Cathedral (formerly Church of the Redeemer). The Diocese of Bethlehem, in Pennsylvania has one cathedral (Nativity, Bethlehem) and a pro-cathedral (St. Stephen's, Wilkes-Barre). We can add a bit about some dioceses having a pro-cathedral, but it is not technically the same thing as having two cathedrals.Rockhopper10r 18:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Nebraska is another with a pro-cathedral in Hastings. The Missionary diocese merged with the state's diocese and the cathedral became a pro-cathedral. Woo hoo! --Chrispounds 03:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you got this information? I've never heard of any diocese not referring to the seat of its bishop as its cathedral. Thanks.

00527 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota (where I live) is one diocese where the bishop happens to have two historic seats and thus there are two cathedrals: one in Minneapolis and one in Faribault, Minnesota (see this link). Jonathunder 14:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely read that wrong; I thought it was saying that only two dioceses have cathedrals. Duh. Sorry. But thanks for telling me about that - that's really interesting. 00527 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, there are several dioceses that do not have a cathedral at all: Alaska, Georgia, Eastern Michigan, Northern Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rochester, East Carolina, North Carolina, Northwest Texas, Southern Virginia, Southwestern Virginia and West Virginia, as well as the Navajoland Area Mission (I think that's everyone). Los Angeles, West Texas and Virginia all have very non-traditional cathedrals (essentially conference center chapels).Rockhopper10r 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Where do they have their ordinations and such? 00527 18:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It varies. Often a large church in the diocese's see city (sometimes designated a pro-cathedral) hosts diocesan functions. Some diocese's cathedrals are relatively small, so diocesan functions may be held elsewhere even if there is a cathedral.

In the Diocese of Texas, where I live, for example, our cathedral, Christ Church Cathedral, Houston, is the oldest congregation in our see city, Houston. It hosts some diocesan functions. It is a lovely old church, but it is not an enormous building by any means. Some of the larger diocesan functions are held at the chapel at the diocesan retreat center, Camp Allen.Rockhopper10r 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That's so interesting - thank you guys for sharing. 00527 15:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding "High Church" etc. in "The Church"

The paragraph as written implied that "High Church," "Low Church," etc. are specific churches; in fact, they are styles of worship. Within an individual parish, for example, there can be a "Low Church" service at one time and a "High Church" service at another. I have removed it for the sake of clarification.

There can be theological differences associated with each group, but those are a very marginal aspect of the Church as a whole, and don't really merit inclusion in a general article.

00527 14:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There are definate differences between parishes and among parishoners and clergy in this regard. The article should have something about it. Jonathunder 14:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Presiding Bishops

I've added a succession box to the bottom of the Frank Grimes page. Edmond Lee Browning is the previous presiding bishop but does not have a page.

It might be worthwhile to add pages for them. Or perhaps not. Markkawika 13:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Frank Griswold? Deaghaidh 9:32, 20 January 2006 (EST)

Episcopal Church in Micronesia / The Convocation of the American Churches in Europe

Neither of these are included in the provinces listed in the first paragraph, yet they are both under the jursidiction of the Presiding bishop, and should be included.

Convocation of American Churches in Europe : Brussels, Paris, Frankdfurt, Weisbaden, Munich, Genvea, Florence, and Rome.

Appropriate adjective

The adjective in the title, describing the church, is "Episcopal", but the adjective I usually see describing people, schools, etc, that belong to the church is "Episcopalian". Is this viewed as incorrect by ECUSA members? I ask because I keep seeing edits around wikispace (almost invariably from anon IPs) that replace "Episcopalian" with "Episcopal", which sounds odd to me. /blahedo (t) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, "Episcopal" is an adjective and "Episcopalian" is a noun (e.g., I am an Episcopalian. I attend an Episcopal Church.). One never says "Episcopalian Church" or "I am an Episcopal". One occasionally hears "an Episcopalian priest", but this is incorrect. The correct term would be "an Episcopal priest."Rockhopper10r 04:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Role of John Jay in Episcopal History

Columbia University's list of "250 Greatest Alumni" describes Jay as, among other things, "a founder of the American Episcopal church". Is there any truth to this? Thanks! --198.59.190.201 06:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Jay was a vestryman at Trinity Church, Wall Street and a delegate to the second General Convention in 1786. It was the third General Convention which enacted the Costitution of the Prostestant Episcopal Church in the United States in 1789. I think that a "founder" designation is entirely appropriate.Ruidh 16:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Bard College

Bard College is currently listed under Colleges affiliated with the Episcopal Church. While, historically, Bard maintained a relationship with the Church, and served as a seminary for many years, the college has been non-sectarian and unaffiliated with the church for many years. I thought I would note this here and allow discussion before removing this particular factual inaccuracy. Burndownthedisco ^talk 04:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless this is a new development, the Episcopal Church officially recognizes Bard College as an affiliated institution in the 2006 Church Annual. In addition the Bard College article affirms this affiliation. Furthermore, as a part of the affiliation, Bard's college chaplain is an Episcopal priest. It should not be removed. CJJDay 05:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Name rehash

I find that I have to bring up the name argument again and argue for the use of Protestant Episcopal Church (whether or not in the USA comes after or not.) I realize that in common use, and as of several years ago in legal use, that the term Episcopal Church refers to the major Anglican body in the U.S. However, the term Episcopal Church is not affirming of, and rather offensive to, those religious bodies who are also episcopal churches (i.e. those with an episcopacy), not limited to but including the Eastern Orthodox Churches, Roman Catholic Church, Armenian Apostolic Church, etc. I argue for the use of the term Protestant Episcopal Church on this website (which strives for impartiality), since: 1.) this was formely the most widely used term, 2.) is still a current legal term for that body, 3.) is used by a few organizations connected with that body (such as the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation in Washington, DC), and 4.) that body still retains legal ownership of that name (as was established somewhat recently in court).

I know many argue that the use of Protestant Episcopal implies to some that this body is not catholic. However, the term protestant simply means opposed to papal supremacy and, by Anglican understanding, this need not be opposed to the term catholic. In fact, the term Protestant Catholic Church was used for many years in colonial Maryland. I know very few Anglicans who would agree with the statement that, "Anglicans are (or should be) directly under the authority of the pope." Perhaps, this sensitive issue could be considered...

MiguelJoseErnst 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

While the Episcopal Church retains the name "Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" for legal and historic reasons, it 'never' uses it in practice. Its full legal name, after all is "Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" and that's never used either. The word "Protestant" carries connotations (whether true or not) or evangelicalism and being non-liturgical which many Episcopalians would not be comfortable. By the definition "opposed to papal supremacy", the Eastern Orthodox churches would also be Protestant. This issue has been discussed before and the decision to leave the article at "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" seems to be the one that is agreeable to most parties.Rockhopper10r 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

To throw another monkey wrench into things, I've heard [3] that ECUSA is now planning to go by the name The Episcopal Church (TEC for short, instead of ECUSA). Should we maybe refer to it now as The Episcopal Church, or perhaps The Episcopal Church (TEC)? Panchitaville^talk 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article about the name change. Jonathunder 17:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that use of "The Episcopal Church (TEC)" is the most approrpiate, in light of the recent convention that officially accepted it as the legal name due to the growing number of dioceses linked to this denomination that are not a part of the United States of America, i.e. Venezuela and Columbia. CJJDay 21:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is indeed the name that's been suggested, one of the reasons cited being that the church is not only American and has congregations in other parts of the world - though in that sense MacDonalds' isn't American either. The recent insistence on using the name TEC coincided with renewed problems with the rest of the Anglican Communion and the very likely possibility that this church will be asked to "walk apart" from the Anglican Communion or accept only some sort of vague affiliation, and not full participation in the communion. As such, it wishes to see itself as an "international" body and not "American," perhaps as an alternative for the Anglican Communion itself. The Diocese of Europe is a part of the Church of England, and the Church of England is not trying to "internationalize" itself in name, so the existence of other dioceses does not itself indicate that a change of name is really in order. I'd suggest that the name issue be postponed until there seems to be more of a definitive course charted out for this church, or it is likely that this debate will need to be held once again. The new name seems to be part of an attempt to deal with the political situation and standing of the church, and indeed, for the reasons mentioned above, it is also very likely that the church will once again change its name, once church authorities recognize the possible percieved arrogance in the name TEC - or possibly revert to ECUSA if the situation with the worldwide Anglican Communion and the church gets better. --81.240.171.35 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that really won't do. An episcopal church is just a church with bishops. Papists are certainly episcopalian. That lot of Eastern Orthodox chaps are episcopalian. But, call it the Protestant Episcopal Church, and you make a statement; women can even be primates, and so on. You then shorten it to "The Episcopal Church" for convenience in speech — which, interestingly enough, is what the Constitution and Canons says rather specifically, last time I looked (though I haven't checked the most recent update). Being protestant is a good thing. It means married clergy and folks who can get married after divorce and someplace for recovering papists to go to church without having to give up the odd genuflection and a penchant for cracker worship. As to the "DFMSPECUSA" — that's the group with the offices and the money and so on. PECUSA is the body that has a Constitution and Canons (says so, right at the beginning of the Constitution and Canons). But you could get rid of all of that, and still have a bunch of guys swanning about in English-style 16th century togs, running dioceses and flying a Cross of St. George as their emblem. Check out the Reformed Episcopalians (who are not particularly reformed anymore...). After all, Seabury and Prevoost and whathisname in Philadelphia had erected dioceses and even had territorial disputes (Seabury was accused of poaching in New York, when he performed episcopal services at St. George's Hempstead, where he had earlier been rector, as I recall; Prevoost wouldn't talk to him at the first General Convention, so the story goes) before the foundation of PECUSA.

What is really confusing: Call the offices of the Episcopal Diocese (and there's an interesting notion; can there be a diocese that is not episcopal?) of New York. "The Diocese" is how the switchboard answers. One tends to ask, "Which one? and is the Cardinal or the Exarch around?" --djenner 02:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Being protestant is a good thing. It means married clergy and folks who can get married after divorce and someplace for recovering papists to go to church without having to give up the odd genuflection and a penchant for cracker worship."

But that describes the Eastern Orthodox perfectly, and they are certainly not Protestant. Sorry, but that is NOT what "Protestant" means. Carlo 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats semantics, the Orthodox church is definitly not the RC, and it is a Christian church that had a schism with the RC so maybe it was protestant before protestant was cool? Eno-Etile 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I just realized my error (maybe) the Catholic church broke from the Orthodox didnt it? my bad. still "protestant before protestant was cool" is an awesome phrase.Eno-Etile 03:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this naming question got hashed out fairly well at Talk:Episcopal Church (disambiguation).

Apparently, in modern English, Episcopal no longer means the same thing as episcopal, and wiktionary isn't the only dictionary to say so. It seems the capitalized meaning was directly inspired by Scotland and USA's Anglican churches. Unfortunately, all Wikipedia articles start with an upper case letter, but fortunately, the vast majority of editors that write a wikilink to [[episcopal]] or [[Episcopal]] really do intend to link to [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]], or would do if they knew that the word "episcopal" just means "of a bishop".

You will find now that the following titles redirect to Episcopal Church in the United States of America :

• Episcopal – this one is hugely popular, despite its ambiguity
• ECUSA
• Protestant Episcopal Church (as recommended by MiguelJoseErnst)
• Episcopal Church
• The Episcopal Church
• Episcopal churches
• Episcopal church
• Episcopalians
• Episcopaleans (misspelling)
• Episcopal Church in the United States
• Episcopal Church in the USA
• Episcopal Church (USA)
• Episcopalian Church
• Episcopal Church USA
• The Episcopal Church (United States)
• Episcopal Church of the United States of America
• US Episcopal Church
• Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society
• Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church
• Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church USA
• Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church in the USA
• Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America
• The Episcopal Church in the United States of America
• The Episcopal Church USA
• Episcopalism (probably a misnomer)
• Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ditto)
• Episcopal Church of the USA (ditto)
• Episcopal Church of the United States (ditto)

As the exception to the rule, Episcopalian redirects to Anglicanism (another great article). My reasoning for that exception is at Talk:Episcopalians.

There is a link at the top of the ECUSA article to Episcopal Church (disambiguation), that in turn links to Bishop as well as to several churches with Episcopal in their name. It solves most peoples problems of being able to navigate the encyclopedia easily, but unfortunately, it reflects the English language's bias in favor of Anglican Episcopal churches over perhaps a billion Christians in other churches with bishops and episcopal polity.

I set the cat amongst the pigeons in August, and in September, we fixed up the disambiguation page and made ECUSA the primary topic for Episcopal and Episcopal Church. That is the best we have done so far, and seems to have been quietly accepted; prior to August, the situation was a confusing mess. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

header 1	header 2	header 3
row 1, cell 1	row 1, cell 2	row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1	row 2, cell 2	row 2, cell 3

What if the article was named The Episcopal Church (USA)? That would seem to fix all the problems people have pointed out.Bremkus 17:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I made Episcopalian into a dab page, since it does mean something else in British English. Also, some of the links to it, like Apollo 11, (a reference to Buzz Aldrin) should lead here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

AMiA

A mention of the Anglican Mission in America was recently added to this article under the Liberal and Conservative sub-heading. I removed that mention for the time being because, as writ, the addition seemed misleading. This is the removed text:

The Anglican Mission in America, a conservative group, attempts to provide an alternative to the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, while remaining Anglican. The AMiA opposes the ordination of women and homosexuals.

This appears to suggest that AMiA is a legitimate alternative within the Anglican Communion, an assertion contradicted vehemently by Archbishop George Carey (see [4], [5], and [6].) However, I do think AMiA should be mentioned here, partly because of the controversey surrounding the "illegal" consecration of bishops, and also because several clergy (and in fact entire parishes) left ECUSA for AMiA in 2000 through 2002. I also believe that the various difficulties with AMiA were part of the reason behind the creation of the ACN, and also why the ACN is structured within ECUSA as opposed to breaking away. I am however having trouble finding references to that effect. As a side note, the above statement regarding the ordination of women is partially incorrect in that AMiA does ordain women to the diaconate, and also recognises the ordination women priests who have left ECUSA, although they have decided not to ordain any more women to the priesthood themselves.

Any thoughts? --Wine Guy Talk 20:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of entire controversies section

I noticed that Jen Kilmer had deleted the entire controversies section of this article. I do not believe that such deletion is appropriate, nor do I believe that the other editors who had contributed to that section will agree that such edit was appropriate. The section deleted:

====Recent Controversies====

In 1976, the first women were legally ordained to the priesthood. (Previously, the "Philadelphia Eleven" were "illegally" ordained at the Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia during the rectorate of the Rev. Paul Washington, a strong advocate of the ordination of women.) The 1977 Congress of St. Louis was called in response to the decision to approve the ordination of women and to issue a heavily revised Book of Common Prayer. As a result of the Congress of St. Louis, the Anglican Church in North America was formed. By 1978, four ACNA bishops had been consecrated. The Anglican Church in North America subsequently divided into three distinct entities: the Anglican Catholic Church, the Anglican Province of Christ the King, and the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada.

The first woman bishop, Barbara Harris, was consecrated on February 11, 1989. [7] However, women's ordination continues to be an ongoing issue in the US and abroad. Three US dioceses do not ordain women. Many other churches in the Anglican communion ordain women as deacons or priests, but only the ECUSA has women serving as bishops at this time. The election of Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has drawn attention to this fact; ten other primates of the Anglican communion have stated that they do not recognize Bishop Jefferts Schori as a primate. [8]

The first openly homosexual priest was ordained in the 1989 by Bishop John Shelby Spong[9]. The first openly homosexual bishop, Gene Robinson, was consecrated on November 2, 2003. Bishops Harris and Jefferts Schori voted to confirm Bishop Robinson. See also Anglican views of homosexuality.

The first woman to head an Anglican church province, Katharine Jefferts Schori, has taken office as leader of The US Episcopal Church. Schori, who supports ordaining gays, acknowledged certain contemporary rifts within the US Episcopalian church. Seven American conservative dioceses have rejected her authority and have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to assign them another national leader. A former oceanographer, she was ordained in 1994 and had served only about five years as a bishop. Her election was celebrated as a victory for woman clergy and for Episcopalians who support full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the 2.3 million-member denomination."

I hope that we can discuss the afore-going deletion to resolve this issue in a manner worthy of the subject.--Black Flag 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. The section was moved, along with the rest of the History section, to the History_of_the_Episcopal_Church article. This was to reduce the overall size of the article, which was over 36K. It should also let the History section continue to grow - right now it skips the Great Awakening, abolitionism, and much of women's rights. More information about those controversies has been added, including the Righter heresy trial.

I did find the references to the Congress of St Louis confusing because I could find no record of such a meeting in the Episcopal Church records. So I replaced the information about the Anglican Church in North America and Congress of St Louis with:

Some former Episcopalians have formed other churches in response to women's ordination; see also Anglican Catholic Church, Congress of St. Louis.

In addition, the references to recent controversies in the Liberal vs Conservative section has been expanded. JenKilmer 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, if most people would rather it be one article, the history article could be folded back into the original. JenKilmer 21:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Someone changed the "ECUSA" and "PECUSA" redirects to point to the Continuing Anglican article. I believe I have now fixed this. Is there anyway to lock the redirect pages???Bremkus 04:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it was done out of ignorance, not malice. There should be no need to lock/protect the redirect pages. I'll add them to my watchlist, just in case, and if you want you can do the same. Mak (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What a mess

All articles need updating, but whoever did the last update gerrymandered this article. It looks like hell! Pretty bad for a church. And who added their buddy's pictures for examples of vestments? A crude way to make it on the www? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thurifer (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I just read the main article and this talk page. I think the article is almost embarassing. What does it say about a communion if adherents can't even agree on a name? Also, what is wrong with the stereotypes that Episcopalians are upper-class, elegant and politically powerful? I am thinking of all my favorite Episcocat jokes. I am being a bit humorous but I am also disheartened. Episcopalians can do better! 75Janice 19:33 UTC, 13 December 2006

Comment needed

I am involved in a discussion with another editor at the article on Talk:George Washington and religion and need someone who is familiar with Anglican theology and dogma (and especially that of the late 1700s) to comment. Here is the discussion in brief... the article talks about the fact (well documented) that George Washington was not a communicant (ie was never seen to take communion) and would often leave devine services before communion. Given the context of the article, it is implied that this indicates he was a Deist. I question this implication ... I think that it might indicate that he was a "Low Church" Anglican. I do understand that I can not add such information to the article - as my personal conclusions would constitute Original Research. But I would like confirmation of whether my thinking is on the right track or not. Unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Church of England at the time, especially the different attitudes of High and Low Church, to know one way or the other. I tried an RFC, but that is being removed as there is not an actual dispute going on (I am trying to find out if there IS something to dispute). I hope someone here can help. I have also posted this on the Anglicanim page. Blueboar 19:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ordination of Non-Celibate Gay and Lesbian Clergy

This is another major issue with the mainstream Church of England. The Episcopal Church unlike the mainstream Church of England and Rowan Williams himself approves same-sex unions and even non-celibate gay and lesbian clergy and bishops. I am just stating facts. The entry should also mention these recent events, related to the first lesbian bishop, Mary Glasspool: "The future of the worldwide Anglican Communion was in jeopardy last night after the Archbishop of Canterbury said that the election of a lesbian bishop in the United States raised “very serious questions”. / Dr Rowan Williams added that the choice of Canon Mary Glasspool to be a suffragan bishop in Los Angeles had “important implications”. The election of Canon Glasspool, who has lived with the same female partner since 1988, is the second appointment of an openly homosexual bishop in the US Episcopal Church. It confirmed fears among evangelicals in the Anglican Communion of more than 70 million people that crucial votes at last summer’s General Convention of the Episcopal Church had in effect ended the moratorium on gay bishops."[10]81.193.215.3 (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This article also shows Rowan Williams open criticism to this recent move: "Dr Rowan Williams criticises election of lesbian bishop, Mary Glasspool"[11]. It will be interesting to make a board with the main differences between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in controversial issues.81.193.215.3 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Eventual Exclusion from the Anglican Communion

The recent ordination of a non-celibate lesbian bishop, in a direct violation of the Lambeth Conference statements made in 1998 and 2008, and their departure from the Church of England over this and other controversial issues seems to raise the question if the Episcopal Church USA might be excluded from the Anglican Communion or to become autocephalus from it. Rowan Williams already criticized several times their moves but I don't know if he already expressed openly what he thinks about their eventual break or exclusion from the Anglican Communion. I found some links that discuss this question [12]: "Dr Philip Giddings, Convener of Anglican Mainstream, England, and Canon Dr Chris Sugden, its Executive Secretary, issued a joint statement on MAY-15: "In her letter to the Primates, the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church (TEC) Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, confirmed that the consecration of the openly gay Mary Glasspool is not a random event but comes from the settled mind of her church./ Sadly, this shows that TEC has now explicitly decided to walk apart from most of the rest of the Communion." "Since that decision by TEC has to be respected, it should result in three consequences. First, TEC withdrawing, or being excluded from the Anglican Communion's representative bodies. Second, a way must be found to enable those orthodox Anglicans who remain within TEC to continue in fellowship with the Churches of the worldwide Communion. Third, the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA) should now be recognized an authentic Anglican Church within the Communion." 1 (Statement from Anglican Mainstream following the consecration of Mary Glasspool as Suffragan Bishop of Los Angeles, USA," Anglican Mainstream, 2010-MAY-17, at: http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/) I know, it is a very controversial question but it should be discussed in here and added to the entry.85.244.227.132 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate introductory paragraph

I have removed from the introductory section a lengthy paragraph dealing entirely with modern social issues such as abortion and gay rights. These matters, while important, are fully addressed in the appropriate body section. But by elevating them to the introduction, an article on a church with a 200+ year history is reoriented toward being a forum on which individuals can express their views on modern political matters or emphasize their pet causes. This trivializes the church and its long history, and implies that the most important facts to know about a religious organization, with its own extensive history, theology, structure, and membership, is its position on some current -- and, for all we know, transitory -- social controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsquire3 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I see Rjensen has restored the offending paragraph, and I agree with its restoration. There are sizeable portions of both the History and Doctrine and Practice sections which discuss the church's stand on social issues and the controversies surrounding those stands. WP:LEAD states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Therefore, the paragraph you removed is very appropriate for the lead section. Ltwin (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I note that the lead paragraph had not one, not two, but *three* sentences devoted to the question of the Episcopal Church's stand on gay rights. By contrast, only one sentence was devoted to the entirety of the church's 19th century history, while an additional sentence had to cover by itself the entirety of the death penalty and affirmative action. I think it fair to say that this reflects a rather severe imbalance in the lead toward a modern political issue that is likely to be of intense interest to some readers but hardly a central aspect of the church's very long history and complex theology and structure. I thus intend to reduce these three sentences in the lead to one to establish some degree of balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsquire3 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the historical importance of the Episcopal Church's actions concerning homosexuality are still to be determined. I doubt it will be less than a footnote in the Episcopal Church's history, especially considering that it may have been part of a series of events that will damage the Anglican Communion permanently. Ltwin (talk) 12:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention also that the ECUSA is facing a possible exclusion from the Anglican Communion because of his departure from orthodox Anglicanism on the issue of homosexuality.81.193.215.60 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Social Gospel reference in the introductory paragraph

In the introduction, it is claimed that the Episcopal Church was active in the Social Gospel movement in the late nineteenth century. In the article on the Social Gospel, it does not mention the Episcopal Church at all until it considers the question of what effect the Social Gospel movement might have on today's churches. Furthermore, it claims the movement peaked in the early twentieth century. If the Episcopal Church was involved in the nineteenth century, and potentially involved today, why wasn't it involved at the peak of the movement? Or is the Social Gospel article wrong? It talks more about other strains of American Protestantism, like Rauschenbusch, and does not mention F. D. Maurice, who despite being Anglican was not Episcopalian. Perhaps we are being a bit too imprecise in our application of terms related to Christian social concerns here?--Bhuck (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this topic, but given that "social gospel" doesn't appear in the article body, I think we could safely remove that sentence from the lead. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be better to find a more appropriate way to describe the relationship of the church to social questions, rather than to just ignore the subject entirely. But, of course, that requires more effort and skill than a mere deletion. I myself am not intimately familiar with the details and would not feel certain about possible formulations without further research, but my gut feeling tells me that there is a good reason to address the subject, just with more appropriate words.--Bhuck (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it would, but I don't know where to go for that information. And if there's something in the article unsourced and questionable, is it better to leave it than to remove it? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This book, for example on page one, might serve as a source for the statement that the Social Gospel movement was not just in the twentieth century, but also active in the nineteenth, and that the Episcopal Church's involvement in that movement also spanned the turn of the century. It might also be something that could be used in the Wikipedia article on Henry Codman Potter. But the Social Gospel article could also use some revision on the basis of this book as well. So perhaps you should not remove the sentence here but instead remove something from the other article.--Bhuck (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Rates of membership loss and the period 2003-2005

Currently in the membership section, there is a reference to an article from the Christian Century, reporting a membership loss of 115,000 for the period 2003-2005. This does not agree with the figures here. These statistics show a membership in 2003 of 2,433,340; for 2005 the number is 2,372,592. By my arithmetic that is a difference of 60,748, not 115,000. Even if we only look at the US membership, the decline is slightly less than 80,000 over the same time period, though arguing that the ordination of Gene Robinson would cause a growth in membership in overseas dioceses of 20,000 baptized members would also seem a bit far-fetched. Furthermore, looking at the figures from 2003 (the first year that overseas dioceses were included in the statistics) until 2010, the two-year period selected does not seem to stand out as having a higher or lower rate of loss than any other two-year period. I therefore do not quite understand why that period is picked out. I added some statistics for 1967-69 to try to balance this, but it still seems that someone has picked these two years as a way of trying to make a political POV argument, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia.--Bhuck (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Title of this entry, "The Episcopal Church (United States)"

In 2009, the 76th General Convention of the Episcopal Church passed Resolution 2009-D010, which requests: “ . . . that all documents, communications, legislation, and publications that refer to The Episcopal Church use terminology that consistently reflects our international character, rather than using inaccurate and non-inclusive terms and names such as ‘the National Church . . . etc.”

The explanation of this resolution goes on to state: “The terminology used to refer to the Episcopal Church should reflect the fact that the Episcopal Church is truly an international, multilingual and multicultural body that can no longer be understood merely as a national, monolingual, or monocultural organization.” <http://gc2009.org/ViewLegislation/view_leg_detail.aspx?id=945&type=Final>

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry for the Episcopal Church outlines this international nature, as do official media releases that are issued from the denominational headquarters: “ The Episcopal Church welcomes all who worship Jesus Christ in 109 dioceses and three regional areas in 16 nations. The Episcopal Church is a member province of the worldwide Anglican Communion.” <http://www.episcopalchurch.org/notice/episcopal-presiding-bishop-archbishop-desmond-tutu-discuss-mission-live-webcast>.

In consideration of this, the Communication Office of the Episcopal Church denominational headquarters respectfully requests that the title of this Wikipedia entry be changed to simply “The Episcopal Church”. If that is too ambiguous, can anyone suggest a more appropriate alternative? Please advise - Thank you. Matisse412 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia its own naming guidelines, and The Episcopal Church is not the only Episcopal Church out there. The vast majority of members of TEC are in the United States, it is the US province of the Anglican Communion and referred to as the "American church" regularly in Communion culture, and its full official name is the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America.

I will refer you to Wikipedia's policy guidelines for article titles, which you can find at WP:Title. Briefly, I would call your attention to this paragraph:

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. If the name of a person, group, object, or other article topic changes then more weight should be given to the name used in reliable sources published after the name change than in those before the change.

It's not a question that "Episcopal Church" is the most common name. We already have an article at Episcopal Church, which lists all churches with "Episcopal" in their names. I would not be opposed to adding the definite article to the title, but Wikipedia's guidelines give us certain things to consider, namely:

If the definite or indefinite article would be capitalized in running text, then include it at the beginning of the page name. Otherwise, do not include it at the beginning of the page name. — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)

I'm not sure if The Episcopal Church is used by most sources outside of official use within the Church. That is something that can be decided by consensus. However, even if we changed the title to include the definite article, we would still need a disambiguation because The Episcopal Church and Episcopal Church are so similar that it would cause confusion if they were not clearly distinguished.

Also, bare in mind that The Episcopal Church already links directly to Episcopal Church (United States). It is simply the need to use a name that is easily recognized and can distinguish it from multiple Episcopal Churches that necessitates the (United States). Of course, consensus can always be achieved if a more reasonable alternative is presented that is compatible with Wikipedia naming conventions.

Finally, I will refer you to the archived discussion that went into choosing the current article title, which can be found here. Ltwin (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. If we are able to come up with a reasonable alternative name, I will be back in touch via this talk page. Matisse412 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society" removed from lede.

As an Episcopalian, I was quite surprised to see that my Church is "formally known" as "The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society"...because it isn't. After searching the archives, I noticed that this was brought up previously in the past, but correctly rejected as an archaic full name for the Church's national corporate body. In other words, it's both irrelevant to the introduction and misleading (it makes the Episcopal Church sound like an evangelical one, which it on the whole is not.) Furthermore, the only instance that occurs in the body of the article isn't even redlinked, and the two provided references do not provide support for it being the church's "formal name." In fact, the 2006 constitution clearly states "Canon 3 (Of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society), Article 1: This organization shall be called the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and shall be considered as comprehending all persons who are members of the Church" (emphasis added); making a clear distinction between the Church itself and one of its governing organizations.

As such, I have removed it from the lede, and replaced it with the proper long form name. Please don't regard this as a POV edit, but simply as a correction by someone who has firsthand experience with the Church. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Your edit is not controversial at all. In fact, the lede only mentioned the TEC and PECUSA labels until August 9. Then someone changed PECUSA to DFMS. So no worries. Ltwin (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Parishes and dioceses section

I'm seeing some errors in the "Parishes and dioceses" section. I believe a parish does not elect a bishop's committee. Eligibility to a Vestry depends upon the cannons of the particular parish and diocese etc. 174.52.43.207 (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Officials, misc

After reading this article, I am surprised it is rated B class. The whole section on high and low is unreferenced OPINION. "Very" high??? Come on! It either needs a reference that it is somehow different qualitatively from High Episcopal or should be removed. I, personally, have never heard of it (but then again I've not been an active member for decades). I challenge the existence of a recognized body of "very high" churches. The use of the word "very" in describing the most formal of the "High Episcopal" hardly justifies a separate category (in my opinion, its more about size of the Church (and how deep its pockets are) that distinguishes how "high" a High Church service is). The structure description is really bad, all it does it toss jargon around. Actually, I came to this piece to find out what the status is of priests. I find it odd that that term is not contrasted with other priests (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.). I also find it odd that the formal title of the various Church positions are not spelled out. I guess if a Bishop is a active homosexual, then the reader doesn't have to be told that priests are allowed to marry? (Why not? Why not spell out major differences with other priesthoods?). It might also be useful to contrast priests with ministers and reverends and spell out the differences. Also, who is and who is not "clergy" needs explanation. FWIWAbitslow (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the section on "high", "low" and "broad" church needs more references and clarity of definition, and some comparisons with (at least) the Roman rite would help. Does a high church liturgy imply celibate, male clergy? Judging by a recent (2017) post on Facebook, traditional music and other liturgy may be disappearing from ECUSA - this needs to be documented (if so) & the section brought up to date. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Primates Communiqué

Something regarding the recent Primates Communiqué should go in the article, but we must be careful to give it balanced and accurate coverage. It is not correct to say that TEC is suspended from the Anglican Communion. Exactly what the statement says is "for a period of three years TEC no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity." Since the suspension relates to participation on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, it should go in the ecumenical relations section, not in the lead, which is for summarizing the entire article. Jonathunder (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

please do restore an improved version :) Springnuts (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Fools go .... well I have had a go. Springnuts (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good IMO. I made a slight change--I added quote marks where possible, to indicate that the text is a direct quotation from the Bishops' statement (with an ellipsis and a couple of bracketed rephrasings), rather than just an editor's opinion. — Narsil (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. This is a difficult thing to report correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good conversation. Also, Archbishop Welby clarified at the ACC in Lusaka that the Primates' Meeting does not have legal authority over any province. SeminarianJohn (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The suspension of the church is a major event as indicated by the extensive media coverage. It requires more treatment than a brief mention. And it should be in the lede. Also multiple reliable sources Time BBC CNN specifically and consistently use the word "suspension." – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 00:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead content

In the second paragraph of this B-class article there is the content The Episcopal Church describes itself as "Protestant, Yet Catholic".. From a writing point of view this would suggest that "Yet Catholic", with a capitalized Y following a comma, is some branch of the Catholic belief. I am not familiar with such a branch so surely this is an unintended capitalized word right? Otr500 (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"From a writing point of view," the quotation marks around the phrase in question would indicate that this is indeed a quote--and I'm sure you're aware that it is standard practice to reproduce quotations unchanged. From a reference point of view, the cited source (a website) will explain exactly what is meant by the quotation in question. As it states on the archived Episcopal Church webpage:

"Anglicanism stands squarely in the Reformed tradition, yet considers itself just as directly descended from the Early Church as the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches. Episcopalians celebrate the �Mass� in ways similar to the Roman Catholic tradition, yet do not recognize a single authority, such as the Pope of Rome."

You're welcome. Ltwin (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It is an odd bit of capitalisation , but the oddness is in the source. I don't understand why the sources has "Protestant Yet Catholic" but "The Book of Common Prayer". I agree that it is appropriate to use the source unchanged. Springnuts (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you mean. They should of just wrote "Protestant, yet Catholic.". Ltwin (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL--- odd indeed. I didn't look at the source. Many editors use quotations as a highlight and even quoted it is very likely a misprint although still a sourced quote. With all the attempted redefining of religion I had to check because Yet Catholic might have been a new one. Otr500 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for "Social Issues" Section

I would like to suggest adding sub-headings under the social issues section. Currently there are paragraphs about financial equality, LGBT issues, abortion, and racial equality, which have nothing in common other than their categorization as "social issues." If this change is made, I believe it would allow each section to be fleshed out more fully, as well as make the article more organized and easy to read. Any thoughts on this proposal?

Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeing no immediate issues, I'll go ahead and make the changes as per WP:BOLD. Feel free to discuss or critique here. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Anglicanism Template

The Anglicanism series template was recently removed from this article and I have reverted it as per WP:BRD. I strongly believe it should be included because it leads to many in-depth links that discuss the theology and history of the Episcopal church, and provides a centralized location for these resources instead of forcing readers to pick through the article for these links.

The relevant help page says that every article that transcludes a given navbox should "normally" be bidirectional. However, since there are so many sub-jurisdictions of the Anglican Communion, I think it would be unwieldy to expect them all to be included in the template. However, if consensus arises, I would be happy to add a collapsible section to the Anglicanism template listing all sub-jurisdictions and thus making the template bidirectional (for this page and every other Anglican page as well). Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks, Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

About the revert of the {when} tag

Hello Jonathunder - could you please explain why you reverted my edit and removed the {when} tag? Thanks in advance. __209.179.9.46 (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Because the article is an overview of the church and being too specific about dates is overdue focus on one aspect. It might be more appropriate in an article about the the history of the church. In any case, just leaving a "when" tag doesn't help our readers. Jonathunder (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, if using a {when} tag doesn't help Wikipedia's readers, i can't but help wonder why the thing was invented in the first place. To the contrary, it helps readers, because it helps point out something another editor might be able to fix, and I thought that improving articles helped the reader.

As for "being too specific about dates," and "overdue focus on one aspect," that is borderline nonsensical. Your point would make sense if the issue, for instance, were over the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lede, which begins with, "In 2014, the Episcopal Church had...," and somebody dropped a {when} right after the 2014. I would agree in that case it really doesn't belong there. And unless the actual date is unknown or uncertain, putting the date, especially when it marks the beginning of something, is always appropriate. It would be like saying the US declared its independence in 1776, and then arguing it doesn't matter when during the year it happened, only the year is important. And it's hard for me to understand why one date is so disruptive.

Let me ask this in another way: If the article already had something like, "The Episcopal Church was formally separated from the Church of England on May 1st, 1789... " would you go in and delete the "May 1st", or would you leave there? Why or why not? __209.179.9.46 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Historical societies

Section 9 could use some clarification, and probably some expansion. I am not knowledgable, or I would tackle it. Rags (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Or possibly simply removing? These seem to be voluntary societies rather than a part of the church per se - I'm not really sure if they are a sufficiently notable aspect of the church itself to require a section here? A church with 3 million members inevitably does lots and lots of things - we can't cover every one of them and keep the article's usefulness as a digestible overview of the subject; in some cases even mentioning something may be undue weight. TSP (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Distribution

Request info on membership distribution, ideally state by state3AUG2017Clive sweeting

Trump edit

I've removed the content about the church's alleged stance of not denouncing Trump because it didn't have any sources. Also there's the fact that even with sources it probably shouldn't be near the lede since that's for giving basic information about the church. Where (or if) it should be included (once sources are provided) probably should be discussed. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 05:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)