Talk:Church of England

Number of congregations/worshippers

Re the recent revert of 'less than 1 million' under the 'congregations' field - the editor who inserted this meant to say that there were fewer than 1 million worshippers rather than congregatiosn in the sense of worship groups. He or she has earlier tried to isnert this number under a non-existent 'worshippers' field in the infobox, which I reverted. So the figure is plausible, not being meant to be the same as the number of churches; but there is nowhere to put it (and it is unsourced although the article sourced figures suggets it isn't unrealistic). Sbishop (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I see, so the "under 1 million" is the active members, a counterpoint to the 26 million baptised people listed as members in the infobox. I suggest to drop the 26 million from the infobox as not particularly relevant, and replace with the 1.1 million from the 2017 reference, but annotated "(2017, attending at least once a month)". -- Wire723 (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

That would seem the best compromise, yes. Sbishop (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Occurrence of prayers for same-sex couples

In this diff, @Pbritti reverted text describing one of the first usages of the prayers of love and faith.

Hello, you say "Unencyclopedic; the November action sufficiently captures the change".

The key fact here is that at least one blessing actually took place. There has been much confusion over whether permission had been given and when it might happen, so it is WP:DUE to include this occurrence. AndyGordon (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: As this was "amongst the first", not the first, this is unencyclopedic. This blessing occurring only the month after such blessings were authorized does not automatically grant it encyclopedic merit to the Church of England as a whole. If you can find a reference to when the first blessing occurred, that may be different. Otherwise, this development is sufficiently covered by the preceding sentence that clearly states that the trial blessings are authorized as of November. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Mbritti, in terms of policy, why do you say it's not encyclopedic? The BBC is reporting this blessing as a significant moment, and for NPOV we should include it. If a more comprehensive account of the services occurring on Sunday comes to light we can update. AndyGordon (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the NPOV rationale? Also, if we inserted every COE story published by the BBC to this article, it would balloon in a manner deprecated by RECENTISM. This isn't the first time a notable trial liturgy/blessing has been approved, and these are generally best addressed by explaining why the rites were approved/altered and mention of the date the changes entered effect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I spent a little more time on this and discover that the fact of the first blessing of same-sex couples by CoE on 17 December has been reported by multiple reliable sources.

• Guardian link
• Independent link
• Irish Independent link
• Associated Press link
• BBC link

So the NPOV rationale is from WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In this case, the viewpoint is that Sunday 17th was the first occurrence of prayers for same-sex couples. We only have LGBTQ News reporting the decision in November but five RS reporting the actual first occurrence.

Moreover, the Independent and others sources say the final decision by House of Bishop was the previous Tuesday. So the November decision was not the final authorization.

Still, we should reflect the decision by multiple independent RS to report on the significance of this past Sunday. AndyGordon (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the most that would be due here is a sentence to the effect of "The first such blessings began in December." Even still, see NOTNEWS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti thank you for the discussion. AndyGordon (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

@AndyGordon: Same to you. That last addition seems like a good compromise. If more coverage crosses my eyes, I'll be sure to let you know. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Protestant AND Catholic

The recent edit to include mention of Protestant and Catholic practises (and note the correct British spelling of "practises" when its used as a verb) was not only historically and theologically correct, it was also balanced and appropriate (unlike the previous version). The Church of England is not just a "Protestant church" (despite what some may want to believe) and many Anglicans reject that description. Whatever it may have been at various times in history, Anglicanism is now properly understood as being a distinct Christian tradition of its own which combines strong elements of both the Reformed and Catholic traditions. The present wording should not be reverted or changed without consensus. Anglicanus (talk) 04:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

‘Anglicanism is now properly understood as being a distinct Christian tradition of its own’

The only people who hold this view are some Anglicans themselves. I am yet to encounter anybody outside of Anglicanism that agrees with this understanding.

If we were being realistic, the Church of England itself has taken a decidedly evangelical/protestant approach under Welbys tenure whilst Anglo-Catholicism has waned. This is somewhat at odds with the more Anglo Catholic provinces. Perhaps Anglicanism is as you describe, but the Church of England itself is breaking with Anglican tradition and seeking to reform itself. Deanpaul545 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

English life and culture and Catholicism - POV+Citation

There is a statement that claims that English life and culture was not affected by Catholicism until the late middle ages (1300s and thereabouts). However, I am also familiar with the idea that Catholicism did not develop until the introduction of ideals of Marian devotion and Papal supremacy, a reformed belief in contrast to the Catholic belief that the denomination originated from the 1st century AD. The statement could therefore be perceived as bias, unless an academic source could be found to have a supporting statement. I added the POV and citation needed tags.

On the other hand, there are statements regarding the destruction of the Henrician reformation that are without citations and I tagged those as well. Eurostarguage (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

A good number of the tags I have now removed seemed to misinterpret the cited sources (with sources actually supporting the relevant statements). Additionally, your conceptions of Marian devotion, papal supremacy, and the absence of a traditional English Christianity preceding the Reformation are out of step with academic literature such as The Stripping of the Altars. If you want, I recommend not tagging the whole article but precisely tagging individual passages lacking citations. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2025 (UTC)