Talk:Anglican realignment

Widening the focus

Clearly the Anglican realignment movememnt is not restricted to the United States. I've edited the article to include Canada, and those with knowledge of any developments elsewhere in the Communion are encouraged to further expand the scope. I've also removed what I took to be a rather lengthy (albeit well-cited) screed concerning the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church. It seemed to be a textbook case of the dictum that well-sourced POV is still POV. fishhead64 (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Your revisions are great. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Extra mural

The phrase comes from non-TEC Episcopalian publications. For example, in The Christian Challenge there is this letter [Letter from Bishop of Ruvuma to David Moyer] of Jan 2005 which says "whom Forward Now calls "Extra-Mural Anglicans". So, the phrase is accepted in "extra-mural" Episcopalian/Anglican churches and is a convenient short-hand to describe the divergent types of Anglicanism outside TEC and the Anglican Communion's walls. "Continuing Churches" is only a sub-set of all the extra-mural Episcopalian/Anglican churches. For example, the Anglican Province of America is outside of the Continuing Movement - see [A History of the Anglican Province of America]:"No formal relations exist with any of the major Continuing bodies". This is but one example. The point being: Continuing Churches is not synonymous with all those Anglican-like churches outside of the TEC. "Extra-mural" as a convenient adjective does encompass everybody. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Merriam Webster definition is "existing or functioning outside or beyond the walls, boundaries, or precincts of an organized unit" which is applicable in this use. It is used by these groups in the traditional meaning of the word. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The term 'extramural anglican' is not recent. For example, the title of a lecture 'Extramural Anglicans' by Bishop Mercer given on 20th June, 1987 at Saint Chad's Church Canningham UK by the Right Rev'd Bishop Robert Mercer, CR on the occasion of the Northern Festival of the Anglican Society which can be read here. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you search for 'extra mural' or 'extramural' at The Voice of Global Orthodox Anglicanism, you'll find that the term is used. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Extramural does not make sense in this case. These churches want to continue within the communion. They do not intend to form their own "denomination" (for lack of a better word). Instead they want to continue as an entity seperate of the Episcopalian Church (US) but within the Anglican community... This usage is new and I'm not sure it is either consistent or accepted and is confusing in this case. I don't think using this term is helpful; is there a better way to refer to these churches? Don't they have a proper title?144.42.9.186 (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In this article Changes In AMiA’s Structure Raise Concerns About Ordination Policy 23 Jan 2007, it is used in this context:

In this, he spotlighted the difficulties for some orthodox groups attempting to remain in the Communion, and one reason some extramural Anglicans have little interest in being brought back into it:...

Google search 'extra mural' or 'extramural' and 'anglican' or episcopalian' will demonstrate that the phrase 'extra mural' is used in the context of describing all anglican-type churches outside of the Anglican Communion. Many of these churches have no interest in joining or re-joining the Anglican Communion, and are not part of the Anglican realignment debate. Some 'anglican realigment' organizations are part of the Anglican Communion and some are part of the 'extra mural' anglican churches. This straddling of the fence causes confusion and the Anglican realignment article does not make this clear: by definition, all organizations in the 'anglican realignment' debate ought to be within the Anglican Communion but complete schism from the Anglican Communion seems likely for some. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the adjective 'independent' as in independent Anglican / Episcopalian church is confusing in the Anglican realignment debate because of the structure of the Anglican Communion. The Provinces are 'Independent' - autonomous - such that the Church of England holds no authority over TEC, for example. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Openly gay

The issue with Robinson is that he is 'openly' gay and not that he is partnered or non-celibate. This must be so because there have been closeted gay bishops in the TEC which were known widely enough but did not raise much fuss. Also, the case of Jeffrey John's - erstwhile Bishop of Reading - who declared himself both openly gay and celibate but was forced down would suggest that 'celibate' is not at issue. Thus, the issue must be 'openly' gay. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the CofE officially allows partnered gay couples to be ordained as long as they promise to be celibate. Homosexuality is not the issue. Homosexual activity is the issue. Seriously, this is like Christian Morality 101.EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Different people have different issues. I suspect Peter Akinola's problem with Gene Robinson has as much to do with the latter's being openly gay as with his noncelibacy. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gene Robinson himself has spoken about the issue and has said that it is his being 'openly' gay that has 'caused the rift than having a same sex partner (see his biography). As for the Church of England, the Jeffrey John case threw the 'official policy' out of the window. John tried to assure those in authority that he indeed was celibate but that did not stop his removal. No, the empirical evidence to date suggests that 'openness' is far more of a liability to a gay priest or bishop than sexual activity or inactivity. As for Christian Morality 101, Robinson has spoken of his 'openness' in those terms: hypocrisy, lying and obfuscation are all seriously non-Christian. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If it comes to that, so is hating people. At any rate, obviously the openness is the main problem, because if he were closeted, well, no one would know. And you can't have a controversy about something you're unaware of. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC has a quote from Bishop Schori: see BBC - US Church 'unfairly criticised'.

The threat of schism in the Anglican Communion was prompted by the appointment of a gay bishop.
The US church elected an openly gay man Gene Robinson as a bishop in 2003.
Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori defended her ministry.
"He is certainly not alone in being a gay bishop, he's certainly not alone in being a gay partnered bishop," she said.
"He is alone in being the only gay partnered bishop who's open about that status."
She said other Anglican churches also have gay bishops in committed partnerships and should be open about it.
"There's certainly a double standard," she told BBC Radio 4's PM programme .

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What the above discussion does not account for is that an openly gay person could be a fine bishop as long as they were celibate, in the eyes of the conservatives. Also, the quote from KJS is unimpressive as the question is why the conservatives are leaving. She is not an adequate source for information about her opponents motivations. One does not ask the pope for an explanation of Luther's motives. Neither is Gene Robinson an objective source for an explanation of his opponents' motivations. EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The neutrality tag removed after constructive edits made to article.  -- Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it's just original research

While it's making some attempt at neutrality, the article is still tilted heavily towards a liberal/reappraiser theory of what is going on. It's particularly a problem in the assessment of intent and the general tone of prophecy in the article. As we are talking about events that have yet to transpire (which is to say the realignment itself), the level of analysis in this article is unjustifiable. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you say the realignment has yet to transpire; as the article says, the Continuing Anglican Movement started over 30 years ago (perhaps not realignment sensu stricto since that's outside the Communion), and there are already parishes affiliated with Rwanda and Nigeria, and an entire diocese affiliated with the Southern Cone. As for the liberal bias and "tone of prophecy" you seem to perceive, you're going to have to be more specific, because I at least am not finding any of either. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of this article either. However, I am much less fond of the "neutrality banner". What would it take for the neutrality tag to be removed? Some editor at some time - hint - ought to re-write the entire article. But, I agree with Angr (talk · contribs): as the article now stands in its imperfection, I don't detect a problem in "intent" nor "the general tone of prophecy in the article". Perhaps, this is because the complaint of neutrality is too abstract. Mangoe (talk · contribs), could you pin down the problem? Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go into it in more detail later when I have time to really dig into it, but the main issue I see is that the article tends to favor seeing the situation as having its roots specifically in homosexuality, whereas I think most of the conservative instigators (and maybe others) would tend to consider that simply the presenting crisis that prompted a "line in the sand" response. Mangoe (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And the reason I also see an original research problem is that this seems to be assembling a history of the event with a lot of picking and choosing, in the absence of a definitive analysis to use as a guide. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your analysis. And, there are secondary sources available to build a good article upon. There is no reason that this article has to give an appearance of original research. I hope you can carry this article to a GA level. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The editor who placed the neutrality tag made constructive edits to the article. There has been no edit warring. I am removing the tag as no further edits have been made in several days. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is Propaganda

Beyond not being neutral, this article is clearly propaganda, inappropriate advocacy, and religious self-promotion. All of those things clearly violate Wikipedia's policies.

It's obvious that it's here just in case someone searched for "Anglican realignment," they would get a clearly biased article cloaking as something objective. The orig author states: "However, under historic Anglican polity, such a move is not possible." Come on. Do you really think people are that stupid?

Anglikaner (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that particular issue. Please point out other specific problems for our examination. Mangoe (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the article as currently written inappropriately advocates for one side of the dispute. The statements that homosexuality is "specifically condemned in both the Old and New Testaments" and that leadership of women in the church is "likewise prohibited by both Scripture and tradition" are radically POV and anything but neutral. These contentious opinions are what instigated the dissenters' secession from the church, and by presenting them here as is they were settled facts the article ends up taking sides in the controversy and becomes a polemic for one very narrow religous POV. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The changes I referred to were made nearly a week ago by 74.242.71.221, I'm surprised they have gone unchallenged for six days. - Mark Dixon (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Year 2025, and the same problem persists.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Tagged

The article has been tagged. The term "anglican realignment" appears to have been created so as to write this article, unless there is a reliable third party reference for this. As such the whole thing appears POV. Brief research does not indicate a specific movement except as articulated in this article - unless it can be shown otherwise. Please provide the references and the tags can be removed. --Fremte (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Realignment" appears to be the neutral term used by most sources. FAQ for Parishes from the non-realignment Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Episcopal Church), uses the term "realign" for the movement. "Pittsburgh votes to leave Episcopal Church, align with Southern Cone" from the Episcopal News Service used "realignment" repeatedly to describe the situation in Pittsburgh; it also notes a pamphlet from the realigned Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone) called "Realignment Realities: What You Need to Know". --Closeapple (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A quick Google search for the term returned 39,500 hits and the very first one I checked predated this article by 3 years. Clearly the phrase exists independently of WP. While WP:NEO might conceivably apply, usage seems to be relatively 'official' (ie, used both by those within the movement itself, and the mainstream press who report on it). More sources would be a good idea in the long run, but the article itself is relatively well-written and informative. Thanks  : ) 71.194.129.10 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed OR and Opinion

I went through and removed any OR meant to support the author's position rather than to stat facts relevant to the article. I also removed a lot of text that was along the line of "which begs the question" , "some have moved too far for others", and anything else which is speculation rather than fact. I also removed a whole bunch of just text that isn't relevant and any unsupported statements. For example, this article originally gave 5 reasons or so for the split but the article only supports 2 of those reasons (gay and female ordination). Also removed anything that refered to the relative 'morality' of the groups involved. This original article was awful and incredibly biased. If you take an excerpt and search for it you'll find whoever has authored this has an agena and has been posting to other sites. I went through and tried to cut out the fat but there still needs to be more solid facts to replace the speculation and conjecture I removed.144.42.9.186 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion regarding the OR and Opinion, I suggest the header be removed. If there is no disagreement or discussion for 30 days, I'll make the change.Will (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"timeline of developments"

The "timeline of developments" is an outright WP:RECENTISM. It does not need to be there. The information in it needs to be rewritten into appropriate encyclopedic form in the rest of the article, and the section deleted. Tb (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the timeline to the history section to prep for rewrite. It fits better there and can easily be reworked as historical development.Will (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A province of what?

In the sidebar on the series on Anglican Realignment, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is listed under the subheading "Provinces", along with the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America.

The Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America is a province of the Anglican Communion. But of what is the Anglican Church in North America a province?

There are many supporters of the Anglican Church in North America who aspire for it to be recognized as a new province of the Anglican Communion (exactly how that would happen not being wholly clear). Some of these supporters aspire to ACNA, as such a province, actually supplanting The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada (two existing provinces of the Anglican Communion). Others aspire to its becoming an additional province, not supplanting any existing provinces.

But still other supporters seem to be not certain that they want ACNA to become a province of the Anglican Communion at all, but perhaps to become part of a new organization of "Anglican" churches, apart from the Anglican Communion.

In any case, since ACNA is currently not a province of the Anglican Communion, what is the listing on the Anglican Realignment sidebar meant to mean? Is it currently a province of some other "Anglican" body? Perhaps that should be identified.

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The ACNA does seek to become a province of the Anglican Communion; this desire is enshrined in its constitution and canons. Currently it is not a province of any larger Christian Communion. However, it does define itself as an Anglican province (which is not the same thing as a province of the Anglican Communion) within North America. It uses the term "province in formation" to define itself. I suppose they would say that since the term "province" means a territory then the fact that they are an Anglican church with a defined territory (Canada and the U.S.) then they are certainly using the term "province" in an essentially correct way. Connection with the Anglican Communion is not inherently necessary to be an Anglican church with a defined geographical territory. Ltwin (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

==

Makes sense to me: that an entity may be considered a province within Anglicanism, not needing to be a province of another entity (such as a "communion"). It might even be seen as meeting definition 2 from The American Heritage Dictionary:

2. Ecclesiastical. A division of territory under the jurisdiction of an archbishop.

The editor in me has trouble with an entity being both a "province in formation" and a "(current) province", but this is a subtlety probably not warranting concern.

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

==

With regard to the "enshrinement" spoken of above in the Constitution and Canons of ACNA of the organization's desire to become recognized as a member church and province of the Anglican Communion:

In the Constitution, the only passage approaching that seems to be this:

III-3

The Province will seek to represent orthodox North American Anglicans in the councils of

the Anglican Communion.

In the Canons, there does not seem to be any comparable provision.

It is interesting that there are frequent references to "other provinces of the Anglican Communion".

Doug Kerr

76.221.81.28 (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes and you also have to factor in the connections that groups within ACNA like CANA still have with the overseas Anglican Provinces as well. It can get confusing at times. Ltwin (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.

In addition, here in the Fort Worth, Texas area we have the situation that the "Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth" (non-TEC) remains publicly unclear about what "church" it is a diocese of (no church at all being mentioned on its Web site except perhaps buried in some topical correspondence), and seemingly has (or perhaps had) linkages both through ACNA and through Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.

It does announce itself thus: "This Diocese is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion . . .", which presumably allegedly derives from its (unannounced) role as a diocese of Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America.

Doug Kerr 76.221.81.28 (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting ahead of events a bit in South Carolina

While it seems unlikely that the House of Bishops is going to exonerate Lawrence (and indeed, it's not clear yet that Lawrence is even going to bother to defend himself), it's a little premature to talk about the departure of the diocese as a done deal. Also, Conger's description of this as an "expulsion" is a dubious oversimplification. South Carolina, after all, set up the provisions that cause them to leave under these circumstances; it isn't as though they couldn't turn around and rescind those canons. Mangoe (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina Was Really Excluded

It is a fact, the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina was excluded from the TEC. The official website shows several documents where it is clear that this really happened.[1]. This article is precisely called "Episcopal Church Abandons Bishop and Diocese": "Bishop Lawrence’s actions have been taken to protect the integrity of the Diocese and its parishes. In the exercise of his freedom of speech, he has stated his personal good faith beliefs concerning the theology and polity of this Diocese. The parishes of this Diocese have repeatedly joined him in expressing those same beliefs. The actions taken by the Episcopal Church make it clear that such freedom of expression is intolerable to them. It is this Diocese and its Bishop who have been abandoned; left behind by a denomination that has chosen a radically different path from that of its founders. For that reason, we have disassociated ourselves from the Episcopal Church and will meet again in Convention on November 17th to consider further responses to these actions by the denomination we helped found. By God’s grace, we look forward to many more generations freely exercising the faith first brought to these shores so many generations before us." [2]Mistico (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is the news at "The State", of 19 October 2012, "Lowcountry SC diocese finally breaks with Episcopal Church": "CHARLESTON — After years of controversy over ordination of gays and other issues, the conservative Diocese of South Carolina has finally split from the national Episcopal Church./ The split with one of the oldest dioceses in the nation came this week after the conservative leader of the diocese, Bishop Mark Lawrence, was notified by the national church’s Disciplinary Board for Bishops that he is considered to have abandoned the national church. A board considered similar issues a year ago and concluded he had not." [Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/10/19/2486425/lowcountry-sc-diocese-finally.html#storylink=cpy] The Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina is now out of the TEC and will decide his future at a convention to be held at 17 November 2012, according to their official website.Mistico (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The facts are that the diocese set up a set of withdrawal canons contingent upon what the national church did. The national church obliged them by carrying out one of the acts which set off these canons, whereupon the diocese carried through with the promises set forth in the canons. Everything else is interpretation.

I've read all these articles and plenty more besides. Conger's interpretation is tendentious and strained; whether or not SC's withdrawal was set off by national church action, it is the canons they set up which are the vehicle of separation, and if it weren't for those canons, they would still be fully within the church just like any other diocese. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061011020301/http://www.anglicanmissioninamerica.org:80/amia/index.cfm?ID=F2FA6A18-3EBF-4219-B4D9A58C150FF363 to http://anglicanmissioninamerica.org/amia/index.cfm?ID=F2FA6A18-3EBF-4219-B4D9A58C150FF363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070709211005/http://www.americananglican.org:80/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/PlacetoStandRevised10-26-05.pdf to http://www.americananglican.org/atf/cf/%7B0124EFED-8D9A-4067-9C7C-969A768F1648%7D/PlacetoStandRevised10-26-05.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070714054540/http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036096.PDF to http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G036096.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151208052210/http://www.thefallschurch.org/clientimages/29455/realignment/statements/021207_tecsuestheeleven.pdf to http://www.thefallschurch.org/clientimages/29455/realignment/statements/021207_tecsuestheeleven.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214083747/http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=308&p_t=main.php?k_j=17&c_c=1&c_y=2009 to http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=308&p_t=main.php?k_j=17&c_c=1&c_y=2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214083751/http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=314&p_t=main.php?k_j=17&c_c=1&c_y=2009 to http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=314&p_t=main.php?k_j=17&c_c=1&c_y=2009
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213175031/http://www.canaconvocation.org/about/faq.php to http://canaconvocation.org/about/faq.php#Q3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928181949/http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.564003/apps/s/content.asp?ct=2664421 to http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.564003/apps/s/content.asp?ct=2664421
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130425073945/http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061214wright.cfm?doc=171 to http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/20061214wright.cfm?doc=171
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110929042520/http://www.anglican.or.tz/Documents/PDF%20Document/STATEMENT%20OF%20HOUSE%20OF%20BISHOPS%20TANZANIA.pdf to http://www.anglican.or.tz/Documents/PDF%20Document/STATEMENT%20OF%20HOUSE%20OF%20BISHOPS%20TANZANIA.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071010030137/http://www.ecww.org/inthenews/Episcopal-Anglican%20Covenant.pdf to http://www.ecww.org/inthenews/Episcopal-Anglican%20Covenant.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110524081737/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003578838_episcopal19m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003578838_episcopal19m.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110110101041/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_87321_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79901_87321_ENG_HTM.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100214075904/http://www.churchtimes.co.uk:80/blog_post.asp?id=89124 to http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=89124
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081017024943/http://www.americananglican.org:80/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.551235/k.CBA8/Home.htm to http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.551235/k.CBA8/Home.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090619153030/http://www.acn-us.org:80/membership/dioceses.html to http://www.acn-us.org/membership/dioceses.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614065203/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_96094_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_96094_ENG_HTM.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614065222/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_96679_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_96679_ENG_HTM.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614065245/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_100894_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_100894_ENG_HTM.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120614065256/http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_104046_ENG_HTM.htm to http://www.episcopalchurch.org/79425_104046_ENG_HTM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019093217/http://www.kings-chapel.org/history.html to http://www.kings-chapel.org/history.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524081737/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003578838_episcopal19m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003578838_episcopal19m.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.churchofthemessiah.org/Chronology.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090628104434/http://www.acnaassembly.org:80/index2.php/acna/page/109 to http://www.acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518011901/http://www.samesexblessing.info/Overview/Chronology/tabid/72/Default.aspx to http://www.samesexblessing.info/Overview/Chronology/tabid/72/Default.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.anglicanjournal.com/news-update/100/article/south-american-province-opens-arms-to-dissenting-canadian-parishes/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=308&p_t=main.php%3Fk_j%3D17&c_c=1&c_y=2009
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.anglican-nig.org/main.php?k_j=12&d=314&p_t=main.php%3Fk_j%3D17&c_c=1&c_y=2009
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.acnaassembly.org/index2.php/acna/page/109
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141017040757/http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=142 to http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=142
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070602100216/http://www.churchofthemessiah.org/Chronology.htm to http://www.churchofthemessiah.org/Chronology.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.episcopal-life.org/81808_121838_ENG_HTM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anglican realignment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100429110650/http://episcopalchurch.org/81808_121456_ENG_HTM.htm to http://episcopalchurch.org/81808_121456_ENG_HTM.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

GAFCON schism?

I've read today that GAFCON has basically rejected the Archbishop of Canterbury and caused a split in Anglicanism. Can someone with more knowledge in this subject explain this better and should it be in the article? Chorchapu (talk | edits) 22:57, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I have added it. For whatever reason, this article was framing the realignment movement as a Western Hemisphere thing (i.e., White people), including in the lede, but the body of the article makes clear that GAFCON (i.e., the Global South) is a major player in the realignment movement. I have added a source noting that it is likely the biggest player, perhaps representing most of the world's practicing Anglicans. The GAFCON move is probably the most significant moment in the history of the realignment push, as it looks to have most of the world's churchgoing Anglicans rejecting Canterbury and the Church of England as the top of the food chain. They even plan to elect their own primus inter pares, rebranding themselves as the Global Anglican Communion in place of the Canterbury's group. natemup (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, thank you very much. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 02:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The GSFA and GAFCON have been mentioned for years in this article. The catalysts for the formation of such groupings were the actions of Western member churches of the Anglican Communion (AC), namely the nomination of two gay men to be bishops in England and the USA and the blessing of same-sex unions in Canada. Regarding the recent announcement made by Laurent Mbanda, the Chair of GAFCON and Primate of Rwanda, there is uncertainty as to the future of these plans. Mbanda sets a future date for the formation of a possible "Global Anglican Communion," (GAC), but he simultaneously and in bold stated that GAFCON is not leaving the AC because GAFCON is the leadership of the AC now. There are not many secondary sources, if any, that are detailing effectual actions or decisions on the part of GAFCON. It is very possible that GAFCON is renaming itself and will, as it has since 2008, continue to exist with member churches who are legally and formally still part of the AC but which ignore Canterbury and the other Instruments of Communion. Also interestingly is that only Laurent Mbanda signed the announcement. None of the other Primates, including those from much larger churches in terms of nominal membership, have signed on (not yet at least). This is a development that editors should collaboratively monitor and we should ensure that other editors, while acting in good faith, are not sensationalizing the announcement which does not have any legal effect on member churches, either within the AC globally or on GAFCON.SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

On another note, this major news in the AC has drawn the focus again to the ongoing debate over how to count membership and whose membership is greater. GAFCON has claimed for over a decade to represent 75% or more of "practicing" Anglicans. However, peer-reviewed research addressed that specific question and the data show that GAFCON does not represent 75% either in total membership or active membership. Other peer-reviewed research, although not addressing the whole of the AC, focused on individual member churches of GAFCON such as the Church of Nigeria. Peer-reviewed research found that the Church of Nigeria claims 18 million nominal members (GAFCON now claims the CoN has 25 million; CoN still claims 18 million officially on their website), but a) one study found that the number of self-identifying Anglicans are between 5 - 12 million Anglicans in the CoN and b) another found that there were 7.4 million self-identifying Anglicans in the CoN significantly less than claimed either by the CoN or by GAFCON. SeminarianJohn (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal that only the head of GAFCON's council signed the new document. It doesn't mean that the others on the council are not in agreement or still need to sign on. All of the "communiques" on their website are signed by only one person, usually Mbanda. He is the chair and acts on behalf of the organization, which has surely agreed to what he puts out publicly.

Further, I have added the actual data from the research you cited, to describe the percentages likely represented by GAFCON among practicing Anglicans and total Anglicans. Better to describe what they do represent rather than just say they don't represent the 75-85% they claim. natemup (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you made an understandable mistake in counting the whole Global South; however, not every Global South church is a part of GAFCON. Counting only GAFCON-affiliated provinces, I corrected the percentages (numbers provided directly from the paper in my edit summary). Otherwise, I agree with including the percentage breakdown. Regarding the signatures, the issue with the AC and likewise GAFCON is that each member church is autonomous and communiques are non-binding. Unless a member church has agreed to participate, it only speaks as to the opinion of GAFCON as an organization, not the member churches. For example, GAFCON also issued a moratorium on consecrating women as bishops, but Kenya did not follow that statement and ordained women as bishops anyway. (South Sudan consecrated a woman as bishop before the moratorium)

Here are the GAFCON affiliates from within the AC, Alexandria, Nigeria, Uganda, South Sudan, Myanmar, Kenya, Rwanda, Congo, and South America (formerly the Southern Cone). From the paper, they totaled 33,582,000 of all Anglicans and 2,817,000 of the active Anglicans. The total in the 2016 paper was 81,427,201 (this includes the United churches that the paper estimates at 4 million in addition to the 77,427,201 of the other provinces) for all Anglicans and 8,795,425 active Anglicans.SeminarianJohn (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

On the contrary: In the research we are both citing, the author, on page 91, specifically states that she is using "Global South" to refer not merely to the geographical region but to "those predominantly conservative provinces which have aligned together under the GAFCON umbrella to stand for what they describe as ‘orthodox Anglicanism'". The graphic on page 95 clearly shows that these Global South/GAFCON Anglicans represent 54% of "outer circle" (all) Anglicans and 43% of " inner circle" (practicing) Anglicans. Those are the mathematical conclusions grounding the article abstract; we need not (and must not) alter them. From what I can tell, among the numbers you just mentioned here, the only ones that actually appear in the paper are the ones for total Anglicans and practicing Anglicans. The rest appear to be your own calculations based on your definition of which provinces are GAFCON, which is original research and can't be used as a source. As such, I will restore my edit. natemup (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you, please, go to the GAFCON website and list the GAFCON affiliated provinces. That isn't original research. (The only numbers I used were directly from page 74 and 88). Furthermore, and I quote, on page 93, the author refers to the Global South-aligned provinces. Not GAFCON. I am also reading page 95. and it says Global South, not GAFCON. So, calling this GAFCON without clarifying the author included that within the umbrella term, "Global South," is inaccurate because the Global South in the paper includes provinces that are not and have never been members of GAFCON. What I would agree with is if you and I agree to say "the Global South of which GAFCON is part"

I wish to add that I appreciate your points. I think page 92 is helpful as the author explains that the "Global South" includes provinces, using the example of Southern AFrica, that are not necessarily GAFCON-affiliates/conservative-aligned but which are part of the Global South movement broadly. What do you think of the addition "'Global South', of which GAFCON is part..."?

Here is the page for GAFCON's current member provinces (this is for our mutual reference; I still can agree with the wordage you've added if we also keep "Global South", and I would also agree with wordage that is or is similar to "Global South,' defined in the research as GAFCON-aligned,...) SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That is quite literally original research. You went to a site completely different from the source, took definitions from that website and applied it to the source, adding together statistics (that were not combined by the source) to reach conclusions that contradict the actual conclusions of the source. That is the warp and woof of what is not allowed on Wikipedia.

I am not saying that the author is correct and her numbers or her definition; I'm saying that we can't cite her and then refuse to use the actual definitions and numbers she ended up with. Again, the author states on page 91 that she is using the phrase "Global South" to refer to "those predominantly conservative provinces which have aligned together under the GAFCON umbrella". Therefore, further uses of "Global South" are to be understood, in her paper, as the GAFCON communion. Not "the Global South of which GAFCON is part" but as one and the same ("Global South" = "GAFCON"). Not "Global South" as an "umbrella term" with other constituents besides GAFCON but rather GAFCON as an umbrella group whose members she will refer to together as "Global South". In other words, a 1:1 relationship. I understand that, based on your original research, you feel she has included among GAFCON-aligned provinces some that may not actually be aligned with GAFCON, but you cannot impose that on her paper.

And your claim about page 92 is inaccurate. She says that the Southern Africa province, despite its theological diversity, has aligned itself with the "Global South" (which, again, she defined just a few sentences before as GAFCON). natemup (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I am going to ask that you one, assume good faith and that you two, work to reach consensus. Labeling me with the insult "Contentious" is both unnecessary and inconsitent with the conversation to this point. I approached you politely and in good faith. You are very close to edit warring if not already there in my opinion. Rather than undoing or removing your contributions, I am trying to reach ac consensus of language. I tame a bit of exception with you using your edit summaries to call it contentious to make additions that are not removing what you have contributed, but simply adding to it. Firstly, the author is a man, Daniel Munoz, not a woman. Secondly, I am not going to object to your current wordage with the exception that the term "Global South" needs to be included. That is the umbrella term used on pages 91. 92. 93, 94, and 95. I cannot imagine what your objection to including the term "Global South" would be. It is in the text clearly, repeatedly, and is the term used in the chart. I am proposing, again, that a consensus be reached by leaving the wordage as you have worded it and the term "Global South" be simply added. I continue to disagree with you about original research since none of it is my original research, but as I said yesterday, I am not objecting to your wordage so I don't see the point in arguing back and forth on that. Thank you. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I want to add that, instead of removing, undoing, and dramatically altering, your contributions, I have actually included them with mine and other editors' on other related pages. I was/am trying to reach a consensus and actively included that in other articles with similar-to-same language. And, I haven't used my edit summaries to argue with you. I alternatively propose this too, just get rid of the whole section about the 85% claim. I disagree with it being included at all and the research contradicting the claim is only necessary because the claim is included. It reads as a promotional of GAFCON; however, I don't remove edits just because I alone don't agree with them. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I've asked other editors to weigh in since natemup and I cannot agree on wording. I think it's best for consensus if other editors make the decision.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The ~85% claim and the study refuting it are incredibly relevant to this article, so I don't agree with removing them. I just think we should stick with what the study actually says, rather than your definition of "Global South". Again, as I noted above with a direct quote, the study author is not using it as an "umbrella term" for multiple groups but as shorthand for GAFCON. natemup (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't object to your contribution; I am only asking that the term "Global South" be included with it in some way. I would support you re-wording in a way that you find acceptable if "Global South" is included because that term is used as well on each page and in the charts. Again, after the discussion, I've agreed with you on most of this, and all I am asking is that "Global South" be mentioned as well. Thank you for responding. Also, maybe some other editors can take a look and make some changes we both can support. I'm going on vacation so I won't be actively on here. Thank you again for taking the time to respond and to consider my potential contributions too.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I can live with "GAFCON-aligned provinces" although I am still asking you add "Global South" as well; I can't understand what the objection would be since that's on pages 91, 92, 93, 94, and 95. However, I also don't want to go back and forth forever. So, here's my request: please, add "Global South" in some way, but if you feel so strongly about it, then I can live with the wording "GAFCON-aligned provinces" at this time. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

For editors without access to the article, here are the author's definitions and statements about the Global South/GAFCON. I believe both terms should be used because they are both what the source says. Using only one is not sticking to the source, although I can support "GAFCON-aligned provinces" as our friend, natemup has changed it to from just "GAFCON." I think that is more accurate to the source.

"Global South: those predominantly conservative provinces which have aligned together under the GAFCON umbrella to stand for what they describe as ‘orthodox Anglicanism’." (91) "Global (non-affiliated) Anglicanism: those provinces which are not aligned with the Global South. They often represent the full breadth of Anglican theological and ecclesiological diversity. While the Global South is an actual name adopted by the conservative provinces, Global (n.a.) Anglicanism does not exist as such, and it is not a homogeneous or organized group with a particular agenda. Figure 3 illustrates the geography of contemporary Anglicanism." (91) "The case of South Africa is also significant, for although historically it has been theologically diverse and in some instances a liberal church, it chose, nevertheless, to align itself with the Global South. Table 9 shows the outer and inner circle memberships of the Anglican Communion by national church and alignment." (92) "Global South" (this is the term used in the graphs) (93, 94, 95) Since both are used in the source, both should be mentioned if we are sticking to the source IMO.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The appearance of a term in a source, even repeatedly, doesn't mean it should be used verbatim on Wikipedia. This is especially true when that term is explicitly defined in the source as shorthand for something else entirely, which you literally just showed is the case here. Hence I see no need to add the generic geographical term "Global South" when that is not the referent intended by the source author. Sticking the source means sticking to what the author clearly and explicitly means, not merely the words they used, as though they exist in a vacuum. natemup (talk) 02:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your selection of only one of the "explicitly defined" terms. I think sticking to the source means using what the source says. That is why I provided the quotations. They're pretty clear. That said, I can live with "GAFCON-aligned provinces" because that is what the author says. That's more accurate, in my opinion, than saying simply "GAFCON" because one can be aligned without official membership. That's what the author says, along with "Global South." so I can live with that.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

POV concerns

Many aspects of the article read like a promotional brochure for GAFCON, using biased terms like "orthodox," quoting leaders referring to GAFCON as the "faithful Anglicans" and quoting claims that they represent 85% of Anglicans (an unsourced claim even in the sources cited in the article). Anglicans in Southern Africa, South India, Wales, USA, UK, Canada and elsewhere would surely also consider themselves faithful Anglicans. While I think some of the quotes are appropriate in the context of describing the opinions of the leaders of the "Anglican realignment," it should be balanced to ensure a neutral POV. I am not going to edit or remove those quotes; I am posting here to ask for other editors to also take a look. If they identify similar issues from their perspectives, then, perhaps a collaborative edit can take place. SeminarianJohn (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The article includes those two terms not as facts but rather as claims. Same with the statistic, which is answered with actual data in the article. At the end of the day, this entire article is about Anglicans—including, explicitly, those in the different global locales you mentioned—who claim to be the faithful, orthodox Anglicans. So we should expect that claim to appear throughout the article. That has nothing to do with neutral POV. natemup (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Claims need to be balanced with facts. One side cannot be quoted as claiming the other are heretics, but then not balance that with the supposed 'heretics' counter-claims. Thank you for your response. SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors, I believe one or more editors have an agenda, whether intentional or a bias that they experience strongly, are promoting GAFCON. I hope others will look at the content, thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The fact is that the Anglican realignment movement is literally defined by claiming they, the conservatives, are the faithful and orthodox Anglicans. This doesn't really need to be balanced with anything because the article is not about other Anglicans who are not part of the realignment movement. It is about those conservatives who make these inherently subjective claims. I'm sure the broader articles about Anglicanism generally include information about both sides. natemup (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

This article is about other Anglicans as well. The developments involve Anglicans from multiple provinces including the USA, Canada, and the UK which are explicitly mentioned.SeminarianJohn (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The article is about the Anglican realignment movement. Not others. natemup (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The UK, Canada, and the USA and their views as they relate to the realignment are not mentioned? They most definitely are. On this one, if someone is calling the CoE a heretic and in the relevant cited articles the CoE responds, the response should absolutely be included. That’s literally POV: Neutral. And I will further point out that the issues of POV go back to 2008 in the talk section. There are other editors here who monitor this and their input is as valuable. I welcome you to collaborate with us. Thanks. SeminarianJohn (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2025 (UTC) 20:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The Church of England is not part of the realignment movement. It's literally what people are realigning away from. Why would their response be included? It's all but explicit that they wouldn't agree. That has nothing to do with NPOV. If editors were stating claims as facts, that's a different story. (I don't know about the history of this page, but the examples you cite are not actual neutrality issues.) natemup (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not wholly accurate to say. There are CoE parishes and bishops involved in the Anglican realignment as there are in TEC and ACoC. The impetus to begin the realignment is also in relationship to the differing member churches of the Anglican Communion. Realignment inherently implies a previous alignment, hence the prefix "re" added before alignment. Without referencing the CoE, TEC, ACoC, SEC, CiW, ACSA, CSI etc. this article would be incredibly short.SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

GSFA and GAFCON

Parts of the article connected GAFCON's announcement about reorganizing as the "Global Anglican Communion" to the GSFA. The two are distinct organizations. The GSFA has not made the same announcement. The two share some member churches, although not all. According to secondary and reliable sources, the GSFA resisted past efforts to merge the two entities. [3] SeminarianJohn (talk) 10:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a single opinion piece, and I presume you did not mean to refer to the GSFA, since the article nowhere connects that to the new announcement. The article links together the two organizations called GAFCON. The group (Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) was formed from and remains tied to the conference event (Global Anglican Future Conference). natemup (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

No, another editor did add the GSFA. I meant GSFA. Please, assuem good faith. Thank you.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Just saw that you are the editor who added GSFA. Interesting you asked me if I meant GSFA "since the article nowhere connects that to the new announcement." Yes, that is correct. That's why it should not be tied to the announcement. That is literally, as you said, nowhere in the cited primary source announcement.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If I did that, it was my mistake. My intention was only to like clear the connection between GAFCON the group and GAFCON the conference event—which, by the way, I think should probably be merged into one page. natemup (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Also, I agree with you. The two pages should definitely be merged. You appear to be much more proficient in the editing mechanisms than I am. Would you take the lead on that? I'd be happy to add my voice to the talk page to say that I agree with you that they should be merged.SeminarianJohn (talk) 02:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

For other editors, an editor (at least one perhaps more) continue to use promotional language of GAFCON, including by adding language not in the cited sources. I hope other editors will take a look.SeminarianJohn (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)