Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church

General | Convergence Movement | Apostolic Succession | Present Crisis | Sections on Worship and Finance | Beliefs| Protection?

ICCEC "Crisis" Graphic?

Does anyone support either updating or, failing that, deleting the "crisis" map? The information that Kenneth Myers, Jr. placed on it eight weeks ago is no longer accurate. I don't know how to quickly update it.

Personally, I would rather delete it for two reasons. 1. Things are moving so fast, information placed on it quickly becomes obsolete. 2. It is somewhat cartoonish. Any thoughts?

Cecfan 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes agreed, it is outdated and sophmoric at best.

Tnelain 06:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. First, please list what is currently "inaccurate". Lets see if Ken can update it. As to the "cartoonishness", I dont really think its an issue.

RoaringOasis 17:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

RO, Virtually everything listed on it is inaccurate today. In fact, most of it was inaccurate when Kenneth Myers, Jr. posted it. Originally, it did not show the NW Diocese. It showed Painter's former diocese of two churches as comprising all of AZ rather than the metro diocese that it was (other parishes were under San Clemente Diocese in AZ, before Painter's departure). The numbers of depatures have all changed.

The information would be much easier depicted and updated in a table rather than a jpg. BTW, Ken Myers, Jr. has been silent since mid-September when the SC Diocese Archdeacon had him remove his "alternate universe" church page. [[1]][[2]]

Cecfan 18:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, yeah... I remember the conspiracy theories that came flying out of that article. I'll see what I can do with the map. If it is that inaccurate, then by all means remove it for now (or note it's deprecation in lieu of an update), and we'll get another one up later if possible. You noted cartoonishness... how do you think that could be improved?

RoaringOasis 19:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

On correcting cartoonishness, I have no clue. That's just how it struck me the first time I saw it. Conspiracy Theory--now that was an interesting movie.... Cecfan 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I will deal with cartoonishness and accuracy as best I can with your help. Please give me the stylistic and factual input that would make the map more acceptable. I'll also try to be better about keeping it up to date. In order to be super-fast in updating it, I'll also make the photoshop file available to all of you so anyone who wants can edit it by just clicking and backspacing any typing new text.

The information is available in a table as well as in the JPG. The table is linked from one of the early paragraphs in the article. Fr. Tanner and me (perhaps the two guys on here with the most radically different views) are both of the mind that the map and crisis section should probably both come down soon, with the pertinent information being folded into a History section (or something like that) in a more abbreviated form. I have asked, though, that we let the Crisis section stand for just a little longer - under a month even - but long enough to see this thing through.

Also, it would be great if someone who knew more about matters than I do would add some of the big CEC landmark events, such as the CEC's acquisition of what was the largest Anglican church in the world, or the CEC's acquisitions in Africa, into the article. I think that things which have been treated by national newspapers are probably noteworthy enough to make it in the article!

And RoaringOasis, you're an intriguing guy! I've watched you in these various forums. Who are you? Where do you stand!? You don't have to tell me, I'm just curious, that's all.

Also, I take issue with this "cartoonish" and "sophomoric" (a word that it's funny to see misspelled) stuff. Be nice! Give me the benefit of the doubt and work with me!

Kennethmyers 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken, good to see you're still alive ;-).

A PSD would be great, And just for the record (I'm not sure who the last comment was directed at), I dont think the map is all that cartoonish. 16bit-ish perhaps (lol), but IMO, the map is pretty much the same as a red/blue map you see around this season... it serves it's function well. However I figured that if I was going to create a new one, I might be able to implement some visual changes that would make CECFan et al happy. BTW, much thanks for the work you've put into this!

As for your other questions, I'll take it to your talk page (shoutout's section sound ok?) to keep things tidy around here. :-D

RoaringOasis 03:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How about two maps? One could depict who left, the other can show what the current geographic dioceses are. Just a thought.... Cecfan 18:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth,

Somehow, I accidentally reverted your new map to the older version. Can you fix it? Obviously, I need to go through the wiki image tutorial. Cecfan 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think someone must have fixed it. It's back. Hey, wouldn't the chaplains who stayed not be under Bp. Myers' diocese, but instead Bp. Woodall?

Kennethmyers 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder what I did to re-set it to the old version? On the chaplains, you would have to talk to USMC Padre about that, he added that part. Cecfan 04:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

New Map Somewhat Misleading

All, the new graphic is still misleading. Case in point, Arizona. The actual state of Arizona had TWO CEC dioceses in it, Painter's metro-area diocese, and the South West Diocese. To darken out the entire state makes it seem like a huge bloodletting took place, when, in reality only two, relatively small works left, leaving at least one parish in Phoenix. This is why the graphic comes off as cartoonish--not because it does not look good, but because it attempts to oversimplify a very complex thing. Using the same rationale as was employed for Arizona, I could justifiably make the whole United States white, because at least one church remained in the CEC. Do you see my point?

The fact that Arizona had so few parishes in both dioceses, makes the all-or-nothing depiction even that much more misleading. I don't know how many more distortions are unintentionally portrayed in this current map, but I am sure there are much more. For example, USMC Padre reports that the former South Central Diocese's two military chaplains did not leave the CEC. How does one portray that on a map? I am certain that the CEC employs the same relationship with her military chaplains as the Roman Catholics and virtually every other church serving the military. If so, how do you show that two priests, whose home diocese no longer exists in their church, haven't left? If I were just reading this story for the first time, I would have drawn completely wrong conclusions about these things from this map. Though I know that was not the intent, its current form is just as slanted in the negative against the CEC (and disproportionately in favor of those who left) as the first. Gentlemen, we just have to come up with another, more easily interpreted way of showing this. An overly simplistic map simply doesn't work. Perhaps, a before and after bar chart or something along those lines would work.

Cecfan 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The map source files are now availible at Http://CECrepository.info/maps/ . CECFan, please see if this repository fits your requirements. the LoA has been removed and the only non official documents are the maps. In regards to the two USMCs, I'm told they are under Bp. Woodall, so perhaps we could merely denote that. I'm all for a table which could more accurately represent the data... perhaps if we get that in place, we can better figure out how to provide a geographical representation to go with it. RoaringOasis 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cecfan, Also not indicated in the map is that churches in Mexico and Puerto Rico have left with the South-Central. The departure of bishops without physical dioceses also doesn't figure into the map. Also, that the SCD was a realatively populous diocese is not indicated. I have deliberately tried to err on the side of the not-departed. In any map, these sorts of bits of information are missed. I have hoped though, that ultimately, such anomalies balance eachother out.

This said, I think there's a way of doing the map hyper-correctly (and with much labor) that you might approve of. I'll see if I can cook up an example and run it by you.

Kennethmyers 01:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

KM,

You have made my point. A map simply isn't the best way to depict this data without some very time-consuming work. A table would be much easier to create and manage. Cecfan 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RO,

You would have to talk to USMC Padre about the military stuff. However, if the CEC does it like everyone else, the chaplains would always belong to their home diocese. It is common knowledge that the RCC does it this way, I wouldn't be too surprised if the CEC does as well. Cecfan 01:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cecfan, there's a table up. It's been linked from the top section for a while (Charismatic Episcopal Church Bishops). The CEC has a seperate virtual diocese for chaplains under Bp. Woodall. So long as the map is supported by data in the text and table, I think it works. It's an illustration, and not the sole source of information. I remembered today that it doesn't depict Bp. Zampino's departure either. (Can someone help me add it? I'm not sure where he is!) Trust me, it's not slanted against the CEC. If you like, I'll give you a quantitative proof. All this said, I'd be happy to undertake the labor to produce a better map using some updated ethno-telephonic methods for mapping that I'll be presenting at a science and engineering conference next month. If you'll email me at kenmyers at gmail dot com, I'll be happy to explain things in more detail, and show you some examples of the sort of maps I'm talking about.

Kennethmyers 18:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Myers, II., & Roaring Oasis,

1. For almost ten years, the CEC Active Duty military chaplains have been permanently canonically resident in their home dioceses. They are TEMPORARILY on loan to the Archdiocese for the Armed Forces, but always retain their membership in their home diocese. They are under the Archbishop for the Armed Forces for military ministry, but retain their faculties in their home diocese. This information has been reconfirmed as 100% accurate by Abp Woodall (Archdiocese for the Armed Forces) and Bp Kessler (General Secretary).

2. The dual relationship described in paragraph 1 is the standard for virtually every church serving the military which has an episcopal form of government (for example, the Roman Catholic Church, ECUSA, Reformed Episcopal Church, most Orthodox patriarchates, etc.) They do this for pastoral reasons for the priest and as outreach. These churches liken it to sending missionaries from their dioceses for a season. It just so happens that most Active Duty chaplain's seasons last a number of years, rather than months. However, this does not alter their residency status within their home diocese. In other words, they always have a home within their church.

3. I put my language in the article to show that the former South Central's two Active Duty chaplains, one Army, one Navy (permanently assigned to the Marines), have remained faithful to the CEC. In fact, every CEC Active Duty chaplain whose ordinary left the Communion remained faithful to the CEC. South Central's defection was not at all unanimous, as the edit seems to imply. We should be accurate about serious matters such as this.

4. You might be interested to know that since December 2001, at least one Active Duty CEC priest has been deployed to either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom at all times. They have ministered the Gospel and the Sacraments to literally thousands of soldiers, Sailors, airmen, and Marines serving in a very dangerous war zones. One of the chaplains from the former South Central diocese is currently facing extreme danger dailly in Iraq while he ministers to his soldiers.

USMC Padre 22:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and yes we should indeed remain as accurate as possible regarding such (and all) details. RoaringOasis 02:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you USMC. I'm the idiot who screwed it up. Sorry about that everybody. Man, I love the Wikipedia.

Kennethmyers 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

KM,

The following are some quick facts to illustrate how the map ends up slanted in the negative, regardless of your good intentions. The problem is that it employs faulty metrics.

The following states had only one or two CEC missions or parishes. With the departure of just these 6 missions and 4 parishes, you completely blanked out seven states, with a total of 565,255 square miles. Over half a million square miles are used to depict the departure of 6 missions (non-self supporting, usually with less than 25 members each) and 4 parishes—half a million square miles for ten works with less total members than some of our parishes have alone! You blanked out Michigan, Illinois, and Arizona despite the fact that they have 3 missions and 2 parishes remaining between them. By all accounts, the Church of the Holy Redeemer, in Rochester Hills, Michigan, is much larger than most of the small missions, whose departure rated up to 60k square miles of departure depiction. If the map is not slanted, then why aren’t Michigan and Illinois still listed as gray or light purple? They have just as many remaining works in them as Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and New Mexico had leave. Shouldn’t these two states get the same all-or-nothing treatment? This is why square mileage won’t work to depict the data.

Arizona 1 parish, 1 mission; 114,006 square miles, 1 mission(?), 1 parish remain

Arkansas 2 missions; 53,182 square miles

Louisiana 1 mission; 51,843 square miles

Oklahoma 1 parish; 69,903 square miles

New Mexico 1 mission; 121,593 square miles

Illinois 1 mission; 57,918 square miles, 1 mission remain

Michigan 2 parishes; 96,810 square miles, 1 mission, 1 parish remain

Total: 6 missions, 4 parishes; 565,255 square miles!!!!

Your argument that the map is not slanted just isn’t logical. I think it would be better for you to put it that you did not intend to slant it—because that is what I believe. Nevertheless, it is slanted, mainly because using square mileage as the metric is faulty. For all of the one-work states, it would be much better to note that there was virtually no CEC presence in that state, rather than make it appear that an entire state left when, in reality only a mission or two with less than 25 members each left. If you want to stick with a map, probably one colored dot for each work that remained and a dot of another color for the departed work would probably express the story better than using sheer square mileage as your metric.

On another note, I noticed that you took out the time reference between Myers' signature on the Patriarch's Council statement and his resignation. It was only 23 or so days after he signed the statement which said, "We affirm the Office of Patriarch as 'first among equals' and as the visible sign of our unity. This was and is a significant part of the vision of the government of our church."

If that wasn't a statement of unity, then what is? If 23 days is not less than four weeks, then what is it? I fail to see what was inaccurate about the original edit. Is this just an attempt to put a better picture on the mess going on in the South Central Diocese?

My original edit was not only factual but accurate. It was not spin nor was it re-writing history. It should not have been deleted. If we are reporting on all of the CEC, warts and all; then we must report on the South Central Diocese, warts and all as well.

Cecfan 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth Myers, II., & Roaring Oasis,

1. If I may, I would venture to say that all of the CEC's military priests probably do more eucharists, baptisms, hear more confessions, preach more sermons/homilies in a year than most entire provinces in the CEC do every five years. Our ministry is intense and highly sought after by servicemembers of all faiths. On my first wartime deployment (Dec 2001 to OEF), I said Mass about 150 times in 200 days, taught, preached, and ministered the sacraments more times than I could count. Most of our civilian priests don't even serve as the principal celebrant at Mass 52 times in a year. However, this operational tempo is typical of our ministries in the military. When deployed, we work 18 to 20-hour days, seven days a week for seven to thirteen months at at time, with no days off.

2. The Archdiocese for the Armed Forces also has the highest education level of any other group of CEC clergy. Approximately 50% of our Active Duty priests have earned doctorates (Th.D., D.Min, Ph.D). We have a few that are currently doctoral candidates as well. All of our priests are required to have the same education level as physicians. This is the bare minimum. Also most of our field-grade officers (Maj-Col, USA & USAF; Lt Cmdr-Capt, USN) are also graduates of one or more of our nation's War Colleges (accredited Masters-level graduate courses in strategy, international affairs, military operations, and international law). Additionally, we all serve as full-time priests. This is not intended as a slam against our bi-vocational brethren. There is simply no substitute for experience, of which the military priests all have in abundance. All of this serves to illustrate the high level of maturity and responsibility of our military priests.

3. I think that it is safe to say that one of the reasons why the CEC's military chaplains have not gotten involved in all of the recent foolishness and pettiness is the fact that we are so highly trained, both theologically and as officers by our respective services. We all easily recognized the dubious and spurious nature of the recent attacks against our church. Not one CEC chaplain left over the recent ruckus. I attribute this to the fact that our chaplains have received proper spiritual formation, proper academic training, and a strong sense of honor & duty to God and to each other--things that recent events have proven were seriously lacking in so many CEC clergy. As both priests and commissioned officers, we know that faitfulness to our oaths and vows may cost us our physical lives at any time. Yet, we refuse to dishonor ourselves by violating our vows. We refuse to cut and run. Most of our Army and Navy chaplains are war veterans, decorated by either by the President or the Secretary of the Army or Navy for our service in combat zones. We do not, nor can we afford, to take these vows and oaths lightly. We have too many people's spiritual and physical lives hanging in the balance to consider violating our vows as priests or officers. I wish to God that our civilian clergy counterparts had the same sense of maturity and honor. If they did, the irrational firestorm that the CEC just faced would have never taken place. No reasonable person could argue that any of the events in the CEC in recent months were either honorable, mature, or godly. All that it would have taken to prevent the recent controversies was a little bit of honor and alot of maturity.

USMC Padre 19:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear USMC Padre,

First, let me begin by saying how much I respect the CEC chaplaincy core. Every member (regardless of service branch) that I have met has exlemplified a fine and pastoral priest. I have several friends amongst this group (including a godparent for one of my children). Thank you for your inspired and faithful service.

Second, let me also re-affirm and emphasize the high level of education -- and more important, pastoral formation -- present in each and every chaplain. I rejoice in this. I truly do. (Though I have to point out that the Doctor of Ministry degree -- the D.Min., is not considered an academic degree, but rather a professional degree. But I digress . . . )

However, I strongly and emphatically disagree with your suggestion that those who have left (or have been forced out of)the CEC have somehow "cut and run" or "didn't take their ordination vows seriously" or some other degredation. Surely this HAS happened in some cases -- but in many -- dare I say most? -- cases, this has just not been the case. This is a gross defamation of character of many, many good men with which whose stories and experiences you are, no doubt, not acquainted. If you are serving overseas, this is quite understandable. But, sir, you slander your brothers by some of your above statements. (Incidentally, I am personally aware of one chaplain who HAS left the CEC.)

I agree with many of your sentiments. But by your broad brush strokes, concerning matters with which you are not familiar, can cause a great deal of unnecessary hurt.

Fatherz

Yes, you are correct on the D.Min. being a professional degree. However, most of our chaplains hold the M.Div., which is both an academic and professional degree, along with a number of other degrees which they have earned. It is also a first-professional degree as are the M.D., D.O., D.D.S., & J.D. degrees (most which are professional, not academic degrees as well).

Also, I know of two former CEC chaplains who have transferred to different faith groups. Both of these transfers occured long before the recent crisis and were amicable. However, one could not reasonably argue that their transfers had anything to do with the recent crisis, since their transfers took place a few years ago.

I am sorry that you take issue with my views on the CEC's chaplains remaining faithful to their ordination vows and oaths of office. Also, I am well conversant in the details surrounding the recent crisis in the CEC. However, I think that you may be reading more into what I wrote than is actually there. I was saying that, as a group, the chaplains did not enter the fray largely because of their faithfulness and commitment to our brothers and sisters in the CEC. I still believe that the entire mess could have been avoided had ALL the clergy involved been meticulously faithful to their ordination vows. "ALL" meaning EVERYONE. Having reviewed all of your edits on this article, I would venture to say that you have been hurt during the recent crisis. There have been others just as needlessly hurt on the other side (including a number of our chaplains). Regardless on which side one stands, what recently transpired in the CEC, was not born out of honor, love, or commitment to each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. Had other clergy (on both sides of the issues) remained more faithful to their ordination vows, this thing would have never grown to epic proportions. That was and is my point.

USMC Padre 00:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cecfan,

The colored-mileage-per-departed-parish is a result of the CEC's sparse presence in the US, and not something that I injected into the map. If states were colored which did not experience heavy departure, it was because I've used the diocese as the functional unit of this map (which also keeps Tennessee from being rendered as entirely withdrawn). I am willing to take the map off until I can make one by geo-coding (ethnotelephony fell through, only about 1 in 10 of CEC churches use the words "charismatic episcopal" in the phonebook!), but I want to make sure I'm not offending some secret silent majority by taking it off, so I'm going to do a survey. I'll abstain. Kennethmyers 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name with four tildes under this line if you believe the map should be removed until a more accurate (parish-by-parish) one can be made.

Frances Cabrini 02:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cecfan 04:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the copy in this section tells the sickening story well enough without the map. I think the map should go permanently and that this section should ultimately go to--sooner rather than later--being replaced by a fact-based summary of the departures, along with recent positive developments to give a more balanced presentation. Kenneth Tanner 15:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

KT, forgive my skepticism, but it seems to me that a "table of recent departures" followed up by some peppy sound-bytes about recent progress/developement doesn't really come out as balanced. I'm all for a rewrite of the Crisis section... It feels messy to me... but I think it would be unbalanced to not note the gravity of the situation. I stand neutral in the map vote. RoaringOasis 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

All, I agree with Fr Tanner. I vote for deleting the entire "Crisis" section now. We could write a two to three sentence statement covering the last few months and let everyone get on with their lives. It seems that the only working definition that most people have on the word "balance" is anything that paints a negative picture on the CEC is balanced, anything that is either neutral or slightly positive is unbalanced. It is time to quit beating a dead horse and begin a little Christian charity. Believe me, no one in the CEC is going to deny that the recent departures occurred. Besides, there are enough anti-CEC outlets in existence to get that side of the story out. There is no need to keep inflicting pain on those who chose to remain. Cecfan 18:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a slight curve to my comment :-/ ... I apologize if it was mis-interpreted. However, my major point was the fact that a "summary of departures" without atleast a general explanation of WHY means very little to anyone. Quantitative data usually requires qualitative support/explanation, as I believe it does in this case. I am not arguing an indepth section go along with the "summary of departures". However, I believe it should atleast be nominally qualitative in nature, giving it the somber tone it is due. RoaringOasis 18:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Oasis, I agree with you that there should be some sort of qualitative analysis, and I also agree that it's weird to mix in the growth with the crisis section. It would be as if someone insisted on inserting some line about Mexico's rising GDP in the section about the Zapatista conflict. It's non sequitur, and it screams "There are goofy people with agendas watching over the page". Because I'm not all that concerned about the CEC guys looking goofy right now, I actually won't oppose that kind of edit (and I've left the Growth and Crisis title to the section, which I love for this reason), but I think for the sake of the CEC's image I would probably not try to do that sort of thing if I were them.

I do definitely think that the CEC's early exponential growth is amazing and interesting and encyclopedia-worthy. Also interesting is an exponential spike in google hits that mirrored the spike in church growth but happened a few years afterwards, but well before the present crisis (which doubtless sent the google hits through the roof).

It also looks like nobody wants the graphic up, and everyone wants it down. I'll give it a day or so more and then take it off.

Also, Fr. Tanner, I'd like to keep in touch with you, even such as things are. I'll send you another email.

Kennethmyers 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenneth: Of course, we still stay in touch. Our relationship--just like my relationship with your father--is not dependent on church affiliation, nothing has changed in either my repect or affection. Am I sick that we have this unneccesary and pointless outcome? You bet. Does it make the last 14 years seem like a waste of time and energy only to prove our fiercest and most uncharitable critics right by default? Yeah, what a waste and a pity over what is in part petty and unserious and in part eminently solvable by greater faith, hope and love. But there's no point in adding pain to pain by loss of friendships.

I equally detest both "prophetic utterances" and armchair analyses that seek to judge the motives of fallible men in this crisis, on either side. It would take the wisdom of Solomon to discern who's telling the truth in all of this strum and drang, and I feel I have a pretty reasonable grasp of it having more access and a wider circle of friends than most, but what of all the people in the middle who are caught up in the drama and ignorance of it all? Hard to know what to do, I suspect. Hard to hang in there with so much perceived scandal.

Part of remaining in the CEC at this juncture, I believe, is the willingness to bear a certain cross of humility, perhaps deserved in some respects (but not to this degree). Some just cannot bear it. I understand their plight.

Joe: You do not know me, and given my virtual reputation (which I do not care to correct as my friends know both my real measure and my true faults) I can understand what you suspect I would do, but I am as objective as the next man about this communion and its real (as opposed to perceived) fault lines, and I do not have a problem recognizing and evaluating these troubles on the basis of reality. Which is to say that you need not fear any re-write of this section. Who can ignore what you call the "qualitative"? Do you think we have lost our minds? Do you think we aren't answerable to temperate and independent critics of the CEC (men with identities and reputations) who will not allow us to ignore reality, men who are our friends in other communions and hold us to account by their friendship? We are not a cult, as some seem to assume. I do not recognize the depictions of our leaders by those whose authority and motive remain questionable by lack of identity. Our leaders are not ignorant of this communion's shortcomings, nor do they deny them.

Anonymous communication is, at any rate, at odds with Christian revelation and proclamation, where the identity of the speaking Person (whether Father, Son or Holy Spirit) is central to the communication of truth. One must know who is speaking in order to judge the truth, purpose, and motive of their claims. From the Garden to the Burning Bush to Sinai to Galilee to Golgotha, our God always prefaces his conversations by identifying himself. "I AM who I AM," "I and the Father are one," "This is My Beloved Son," and so on. Christian and Western legal ethics require the identity of sources and the lack of such in modern journalism--especially as practiced on the internet--has led to the present deterioration of public discourse, to cynicism, and to a blurring of fact and opinion with fantasy and speculation. In public and private, this mode of communication preys on the worst parts of ourselves by banishing who we are from what we say or convey, quite apart from what it does to virtues like courage.

As for including some of the growth statistics and international advances as part of the contemporary section, Kenneth, you were the first to suggest this several months ago. I simply repeated your suggestion.

Peace--Kenneth Tanner 02:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

RO,

I am very leery of a "qualitative" explanation, especially since those of us remaining in the church aren't insisting on making this article an advertisement FOR the CEC. Why does balance and fairness have to equate to an advertisment AGAINST the CEC by those who departed? Qualitative, in this sense, suggests subjectivity, not objectivity.

Based on the history of this article, a "qualitative" explanation translates to mean negative slanting against the CEC. What is wrong with simply stating something to the effect that the CEC had phenominal growth for its first decade; some people in the US got dissatisfied for a number of reasons and left (individually and in groups); the people who remain are working on the issues raised by those who left; and all involved are trying to get on with their lives WITHOUT QUALITATIVE COMMENT? That is only reasonable and fair.

For those of us who have been around for some time, this story is really not all that remarkable. It is a common phenomenon that many who are quick to jump on a bandwagon, are equally as quick to jump off of it. A number of people joined the CEC in a mad dash. Many of them, either rightly or wrongly, realized that the CEC wasn't what they thought it was (or what they wanted it to be) and left. That is not a remarkable story in the least. The anger, hurt, and wild accusations we experienced are all part and parcel of every church split in history, so that part of the story is equally unremarkable. This is not to say that there are not hurting people around, on both sides. However, most of the pain inflicted was needless. Why continue with things that can only cause further pain? Do you really want to insist on making this relatively minor event in Church History as hateful and contentious as the Great Schism was to our Roman and Orthodox brethren?

No matter how it is sliced, qualitative comments from those who departed will appear negative to those who remained. Equally, the same type of qualitative comments from those who remained will appear positive to the CEC to those who departed. There is simply no other fair way of reporting the story other than the dispassionate way described above--with no slanting, pro or con. The story should read that "A" happened, then "B" happened, and "C" is where the church presently is; nothing more, nothing less.

Cecfan 03:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey CecFan, I'm time limited so just a couple touch-up notes: First, qualitative != subjective. A then B then C works for the most part... perhaps qualified a little further with some basic cause/effect notes. Second, minor event in Church History yes , BUT this is not an article on Church History. This is an article on the CEC, past/present/future, which narrows the scope. Is this a minor event in CEC history? No , IMO. Being an encyclopedic article, I think the crisis should be duly noted, as much of a "stain" as it may be percieved as. We arent here to be nice, nor are we here to present a biased view. Here is a general example of how I feel it should be layed out (much refineing is probably needed):

Sub-Section: 2006 National Crisis

Text: In 2006, X (Administrative and Moral issues, perhaps?) happened (were raised by various bishops and clergy?) which began a nine month long chain of events during which X bishops, X clergy, X cathedrals/parishes/missions, and X% of the lay people, left the CEC. Three large groups (XYZ) formed fellowships of their own, and many other clergy saught covering in several prominent coverings. This controversy was followed very closely by many past and present members of the CEC, with much of the discussion taking place on several Forums and WebLogs. At the end of this controversy, X bishops, X clergy, X cathedrals/parishes/missions, and X% of the lay people, chose to remain in the CEC, and rebuild/renew. Below is a table containing statistics and the names of Bishops remaining and withdrawn (along with cited reason):

Now dont go tearing thru that saying that even such is subjective. Some wording may need to be negotiated. However, the general template should still stand.

Fr. Tanner, I'll take my reply to your comments to your talk page as soon a time permits. Thanks for the communication opportunity.

RoaringOasis 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

RO,

I see no major problem with what you said except the so-called "moral" part of the crisis. Undoubtedly, you are referring to the allegations against the Patriarch which you are cataloging for posterity. These allegations were brought up in the most subjective and irresponsible ways imaginable. The irresponsible nature in which these allegations were propagated is just as much a moral failure by those involved as the purported allegations themselves.

Additionally, the only legitimate forum that heard most of these allegations, the Patriarch's Council, rejected them not once, but twice after hearing them out by the entire Council. That is notable and should be mentioned without further comment if one insists on listing the allegations. If we bring up just the allegations against the Patriarch, are we going to bring up the fact that much of the anti-CEC fervor was fueled by blogs and forums hosted by non-members of the church? That is also equally notable, especially because they had a part to play in many of the departures that took place. As much as one tries, one cannot deny the negative effect that the blogs and forums had on the CEC.

The fact is, that many people on both sides have dirt on their hands. It is impossible to mention everyone's failures on both sides of this crisis in either a charitable, Christian way or in a way that is remotely fair to anyone involved. There was, and still is, so much hurt that was caused from half-truths, conjecture, and poor nastiness, that it is virtually impossible to write a concise statement that would be both equitable and objective. We should just simply say something to the effect that, for a number of reasons, during 2006 a number of people left the CEC. No further "qualifying" comments beyond that can be made that are not subjective and hence pushing one agenda or another.

Cecfan 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL: I just found this page last night.

IMHO-The main reference page on Wikipedia for the ICCEC (or any subject) should give general information, with links to sub-topics as appropriate.

All sections except the "Current Status: Growth and Crisis" section give general info in brief statements covering over 14 years, with in-text links to appropriate sub-topics/pages. On the other hand, the "Current Status: Growth and Crisis" section gives month-by-month, blow-by-blow items, that at best belong on some sub-page somewhere. [Is this a general info page, or some weekly newsletter?]

This main web page also completely ignores the life & history of the Communion outside the US, which has been considerable for at least the last 7 years (more than half the life of the Communion). It's as if all of the Communion exists in the US alone. By far, most of the ICCEC's clergy/ parishes/ laity (and much of its vision) are in Africa, South America, and Asia--where the Communion continues to grow, little affected by the strife in the US portion. [A weekly update on the US, but nothing on the rest of world after so many years? Or doesn't the rest of the world matter? How about some perspective?]

I request that the "guardians" of the site

a. please make the current "Current Status: Growth and Crisis" section at most a linked sub-page of the main page (if it is appropriate for this particular venue at all), and

b. also add something accurately chronicling the rise and activity of the international part of the ICCEC.

This doesn't duck issues, or suggest glorifying its international nature beyond its reality, but offers to provide a more complete, general picture of the Communion for the main page.

[Comments are welcome.]

dgardner710 15:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

All,

I agree with dgardner710. The blow-by-blow account in the crisis section is way out of balance with the rest of the article. It never belonged in the article in the first place. I still feel that it was originally written to negatively slant the article against the CEC, not for any good or noble purpose. I vote to DELETE the "crisis" section completely. There are enough places out there for people to get this type of information.

Cecfan 21:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please sign under here if you think the map should remain until a more accurate (parish-by-parish) one can be made.

Current Status

All,

With the help of Fr. Tanner, I have digested the "blow-by-blow" account of the crisis section to a more succinct paragraph. I have also included a short description of the CEC's overseas growth. This should tend to balance the picture a little more and bring the tone of this section more into line with the rest of the article.

If someone would care to write an appendix similar to the "Charismatic Episcopal Church timeline" in the Origins section, we could better catalog accurate numbers of the departures in a more appropriate context. We could link it the same way as the timeline. This will keep the article cleaner and easier to read, while still giving detail for those who want it. Such a section should include the number of clergy departures by order and number of congregations by type and size (mission or parish). Since many of the congregations that left were extremely small two to three family missions, it would be good to somehow differentiate between those and the larger self-supporting, viable parishes that left the CEC.

Cecfan 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, excellent job!! I also updated the table that lists the bishops who are in the ICCEC by removing those that have been deposed or left/resigned, thinking "who provides a list of former clergy/ministers?"

Marylandcec 09:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Marylandcec: If this was a list of priests or deacons, I would agree. This is a list of bishops, and we need to preserve the complete list to apostolic succession purposes. I had hoped to populate the consecrators column of the table as I discover that information. Since many of the bishops that have resigned or been deposed are quite possibly co-consecrators of those who remain, I would be extremely reluctant to remove the departed bishops from the list. Hald 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

cecfan & Marylandcec: Much obliged for the re-write on the bottom of the main page.

The timeline in the Origins Section is straight-forward, factual, and helpful. IMO--It should also be included in the bottom "Growth" section, as it chronicles with some detail the international growth of the church.

I do find the timeline lacking, however, regarding 2006. It speaks of several bishops leaving, and the HOB, but does not mention these were solely in the US. [Forgive me, again. Though I thank God for the US, I am aware that neither Heaven nor Earth revolve around either me or my country.]

I could not find a link from the main page to the table of bishops--though I may have somehow overlooked it. If you could provide one, there or here, that would help. You might retain the full table, with superscripts to show status, such as: d for deposed, r for resigned (no mark, for active, retired, or deceased).

I also suggest that the table be labeled as US bishops only, and that an international table be begun (a much bigger project).

Thanks, again.

--Dgardner710 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deacon Dan,

I'd like to take credit for the re-write, but that belongs solely to CECFan and Father Tanner. For the link to the list of bishops, see the word "table" in the first section of the article. It already has a clear status next to each name and includes the international bishops. I just didn't see the importance of maintaining those who have left the CEC on the list, but I think Hald has a point. Perhaps others can weigh in on whether or not they think it should be kept as is or cleaned-up to remove the names of those who have resigned.

--Marylandcec 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)