I don't know why any of us should bother to try to figure out what is going on. It seems Wikipedia has the answer. Thanks to Susan Russell and a friend for this:
From the Anglican Communion Network page on Wikipedia:
"After the ECUSA's 2006 General Convention, some Bishops, both within the Church and from the Anglican Communion, suggested that the Anglican Communion Network should be recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury and by the Anglican Consultative Council as the orthodox expression of Anglicanism within the United States. Although liberals continue to argue that ECUSA remains true to the historic faith of the See of Canterbury, the ACM is expected to replace ECUSA after the next Lambeth conference in 2008, following on from full recognition by the Global South Primates conference in 2006."
Well, damn! And I thought it wasn't a done deal!
All of this would be funny, except that it isn't.
9/06/2006
10 comments:
OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Has anybody told Canterbury?
ReplyDeleteAnybody can put anything up there that they want to, you know.
ReplyDeleteThat means you, too, BTW.
Is this why wikipedia is not a recommended source for my GOE's in January? Hmmm... I'll have to check my other sources. Do you think the readers will allow Preludium and the AAC Weblog in my Bibliography?
ReplyDeleteAnd I thought that the Nutwork types were to conservative to post their sexual fantasies in public view!
ReplyDeleteFWIW
jimB
eternally lurking in Chicago
The page was edited today, which you can see by going here.
ReplyDeleteAgain, anybody can post anything they like at Wikipedia, and that includes any one of us here; all you have to do is click the [edit] icon. (After awhile, if this is abused, I suppose they'll shut the page down, though, and allow only registered users to post.)
I suspect that's exactly what had happened, in fact: some individual posted that as a gag, or because they wanted to see it in print. As you can see, there's now a notice at the top of the main page that says "Some information in this article or section has not been verified and may not be reliable."
Which is quite often true.
Even the edited (dare I say revisioned?) version simply assumes that the non-global South meeting will produce some sort of,
ReplyDelete"recognition." It is not clear to me exactly what the author(s) think that will be or what it will achieve. None-the-less, it seems to be what is expected.
I monitor David Virtue's pages, attmpting, where possible to interject some moderation into the threads. Of late the cleavages within the self-annointed orthodox have become increasingly evident. So, for instance, some consider +Duncan not orthodox because he accepts women clerics, others (Quincy) disavow the evangelicals. Still others consider anyone who has not left TEC for some sort of "jurisdiction" to be apostate by association. They actually condem +Schofield!
The question may well be if the self-proclaimed holy can stand the fact that not only do they disagree with those of us who are bad, sinful, apostate, evil liberals (I think I got that right) but the also don't agree with each other!
FWIW
jimB
eternally lurking in Chicago
Spankey asked:
ReplyDelete'Is this why wikipedia is not a recommended source for my GOE's in January? Hmmm... I'll have to check my other sources. Do you think the readers will allow Preludium and the AAC Weblog in my Bibliography?'
When I've taught undergraduate courses, I've always insisted that (with some exceptions), students give 2 print sources for every Internet. I also have done a session in each class about a 'hierarchy of sources' based on markers for their credibility and reliability.
Because Wikipedia can change at a moment's notice, and is not necessarily reliable or consistent in its quailty, it's right at the bottom of the list. Academically and intellectually, my sense of Wikipedia is that it's the refuge of the lazy and undiscerning. A student would have to have a LOT of stuff to corroborate anything from Wiki before I would consider it reliable.
Go to good sources, and forget this nonsense, spankey.
Wikipedia was found to have a high degree of accuracy, at least in its science entries. It compared well to Encyclopedia Britannica.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm
I would imagine this is due to the large knowledgeable user-base actively policing it. Not to say that wikipedia cannot contain misinformation, but items such as the example posted should be quickly corrected if the system works as intended.
Fr. Mark, great site, great service to the Church. Thanks for taking the time to build it!
ReplyDeleteHoping you might add my site to your blog roll? http://sanctifusion.blogspot.com
Blessings on you all!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete