Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church

Christianity: Charismatic Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Mid-importance).

Latest Edits

I've read through and edited the entire article for accuracy and (in some places) style. While some of the negative point of view content is unnecessary for a short article, included by detractors simply to embarrass and give a false or confusing first impression, particularly the mention of Archbishop Spruit's wife as a co-consecrator of Timothy Barker, it's useless to edit these parts out and these details are part and parcel of the story, no matter how ephemeral to where the CEC has, in fact, ended up. That particular episode illustrates how little the CEC founder's (they were Charismatics, all) knew about the religious world they were entering, but doesn't excuse their lack of research and care. The mention of a woman co-consecrator reveals nothing about what the CEC has become, but it does point up a serious early error, one that caused problems for years, and by remembering this (and other mistakes), keeping them in the forefront of our minds, we might hope to avoid similar errors in the future. Kenneth Tanner (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymity

Anonymity in life, including life on the internet, is inconsistent with Christian belief and practice, for the Christian God discloses himself completely in Jesus Christ and his gospel is public truth. When we "hide" our persona, temptation is nearby. It seems to me that anonymity has no business in the editing of a publicly-available document that is peer-reviewed and strives to be accurate. Kenneth Tanner (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charismatic Episcopal Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

I would downgrade the reliability of this article. I have been following this article, and the controversy surrounding the subject it discusses for some time now. The fact is, is that the denomination described by this article has been in absolute turmoil for the last 18 months or so. Mass resignations, leadership changes, theological position changes, and financial and moral scandals have become the order of the day. Many former members of the church vehemently disagree with the statements posted here as "fact", including, I might add, the individual who originally de-stubbed the article. Partisan editing (on both sides of the controversy) have been extremely common and right now, there are a few unsigned contributers who persist in removing the Neutrality Dispute in contravention of Wikipedia guidelines.

This is NOT a reliable article.--Martin Buber 16:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting spin Martin. Actually, no one disagrees with what's posted, but those that have left the CEC in last year's U.S. based upheavel would like to post so-called information based on things they've heard through the rumor-mill. Some of it is true, much of it is out-of-context, and some of it is outright lies, but most importantly, NONE of it is publically available information and thus does not belong in an encyclopedi article. Just stick to the facts, which are present in the article. All of the clergy and parish departures are mentioned as well as a high-level representation of why. Getting into the specific charges, when those charges are accumulated based on an internet forum and behind the scenes phone calls isn't appropriate. If it can't stand the scrutiny of a court of law, because it can't be proven, you'd better not publish it lest you bring a lawsuit on yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.17.12 (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 11:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charismatic Episcopal Church. 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:

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) 18:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What allegations?

What are the allegations that caused 30% or more to leave? They must be very serious. Was money stolen? Was it sexual? Were there organization shenanigans? Was there a theological dispute? The allegations need to be mentioned otherwise the article is seriously lacking and such a lack suggests a cover-up, which would violate neutral point of view. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]