Talk:The Falls Church

Discussion Prior to Dispute Resolution

"BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISPUTE THEOLOGY" - I don't really see much theology here. It seems pretty historical to me. The church was founded, the building was improved, congregations worshiped there, etc. There is no theology. The separation should come at the end because it happened last in it's history. As for the property dispute, that should go on a separate page where it can be given the attention it deserves. However, a note to the dispute is appropriate and if you want to link to a page that deals with that issue, I would support that. I disagree with your notion the "The Falls Church" refers to two churches. It refers to the "church at the falls", which is the congregation that worships at the historic site. This has been several things in the past, but today is Anglican. This is not theological, just historical. Twakjaco (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ALL: While this is clearly an article about the Historic Church in Falls Church, there are still disputed facts - hence the court's involvement. Plus, it would do well for future generations of the church to understand the nature of church division. While The Falls Church has begun an attempt to leave the Episcopal Church, it is still a part of the Anglican Communion, and a sister church to the Episcopal Church that worships across the street. To divide their histories is to negate and rewrite portions of history that are still developing. Please make edits that reflect BOTH histories up until the split - for Neutrality - and at the point of division, please make clear WHICH church you are talking about - and if we need to split those articles off to a "The Falls Church (Anglican)" page and a "The Falls Church (Episcopal)" page in order to maintain neutrality and to disambiguate the issue, then let's do that! BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISPUTE THEOLOGY, this is a place to record history. 71.178.115.183 (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly an article about the historic church in Falls Church. There are not two historic churches. Feel free to add a different wiki about the Falls Church, Episcopal, but that is not what this article is about. Twakjaco (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The letter in question from Bishop Lee does exist although not anywhere online. I don't think the description of the parish is improved by reference to the letter, and besides, there are many issues much larger than one letter causing a break within the Anglican Communion. Also, a quibble: The Falls Church (Anglican and Episcopal) are parishes, not churches. The "church" is the entire ecclesial body to which a parish belongs. QJX (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There are some dangerous sections here that need cites to maintain NPOV, especially: '"This perception came from a number of incidents including the failure of the 2006 General Convention to confirm Christ as Lord, and a letter from Bishop Lee (Diocese of Virginia) stating that Christ is not the sole means of salvation." ' That's some strong stuff, and smells like propaganda from those who wish to demonize Bishop Lee. --ElmoHoo (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Jbtlr: I have taken the inflamitory statements you cited and presented them as the opinion of TFC(A) as an explanation for why they left. There is room to present the reasons of TFC(E) for staying, and I hope you do. I think that it is appropriate to present summary arguments, in a matter-of-fact way, on both sides so that people can at least gain an introduction to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 11:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Jbtlr: We have two other options before resorting to a third party, and I think we can come to an agreement. 1) Create two entries for the two different churches. Originally, this page was really about The Falls Church (Anglican). Trying to make it about both was probably a mistake. The Falls Church (Episcopol) is really a different organization and should have its own entry. 2) I could try to relate the notion that TFC(A) perceived a discrepency between the constitution and the actions of ECUSA in a less inflamitory way (e.g. your second example). I cannot take credit for most of your first example, which looks to me like mostly a statement of facts.

Twakjaco: I have no problem with the constitution of TEC being cited. It was deleted automatically when its reference was deleted. The reference I do have a problem with -- your additions contain way too much point of view, which is a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Example: '"because of such controversies as the failure of the 2006 General Convention to confirm Christ as Lord.[1] Consequently, there are now two bodies bearing the name: The Falls Church (Anglican) describes itself as Evangelical, which emphasizes the authority of the Bible, salvation through faith in Christ, and traditional Christian teachings as documented in the Book of Common Prayer, and The Falls Church (Episcopal), which describes itself as "an Episcopal Church centered on the hopeful promises of Jesus Christ, love for one another, and service to the community." ' Is unbalanced and leans heavily toward the Falls Church (Anglican) point of view.

and your comment

Ironically, by separating, The Falls Church (Anglican) is more closely adhering theologically to the constitution of the Episcopal Church[2] which states that it's (SIC) faith is described in the Book of Common Prayer, requires bishops to swear to uphold the Bible as the holy word of God, and requires the church to be in good standing with the greater Anglican Communion.

is not just point of view, but editorial comment.

The next step in Wikipedia policy is for us to agree to a third party resolution of this dispute. Would you agree to stand by a third party ruling?

Jbtlr 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jbtlr: You make some good points; however, the resolution confirming Christ as Lord is not just one of hundreds of resolutions. It is a consistent resolution that has been proposed and passed for decades. It is a litmus test that the orthodox have been using to gage the state of the church, and this is well known. The General Convention voted it down, not "for a variety of complex reasons", but to send a message to the orthodox that this is THEIR church, and their theology is going to take precidence over traditional beliefs and even over the Consitiution. This is why I think it is so important to point out what the Consititution says regarding some of these fundamental issues.

But even if you don't think this is good evidence, there are plenty of other things I could site instead. And I still don't understand why you would take out the link to the Constitution, which defines what the churh is supposed to be. It's this very inconsistancy between what the church is supposed to be versus what it does that has caused the separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 14:38, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Twakjaco: The Falls Church article already contains a reference to the reason the majority members voted to leave the Episcopal Church: The decision to break away was due to the majority's perception that the Episcopal Church is moving away from traditional Christian beliefs such as those documented in the Book of Common Prayer. That is a fair statement -- the majority DO perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the Episcopal Church is moving away from traditional Christian beliefs. So that statement can be considered a fair one; a generally agreed upon reason for the majority's vote.

But to imply that by not passing a specific resolution at The General Convention, when there are hundreds of resolutions that are either never brought to the floor or voted down for a variety of complex reasons, is evidence that the Episcopal Church in general has changed its theological stance, is misleading.

Even if the Episcopal Church, at The General Convention, were to pass a resolution stating a non-orthodox view on theology, that would not be, by itself, determinative of the theology of the Episcopal Church, because as you rightly point out, the theology of the Episcopal Church is found in the Book of Common Prayer, and The General Convention did not modify the Book of Common Prayer. In fact, as an orthodox person myself, I am glad mischief-makers at General Convention cannot easily modify the BCP according to the latest theological or social trend. The BCP thus remains something of a ballast in stormy times. Jbtlr 14:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone remove the reference to the constitution of the Episcopal Church? It is relevant to the separation because it is evidence of what the church is supposed to be.-------------------------------------------------------------------- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twakjaco (talk • contribs) 13:58, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Please stop insisting that we broke away simply because of the ordination of Gene Robinson. This is actually an extreemly unfair treatment of this issue. The fact is that this split has been happening for over 30 years- long before this ordination. It is a deeply theological divide which is rooted in a difference in how we view Christ.

I also think it is somewhat inappropriate for someone to make a claim about The Falls Church's (Anglican) reasons for leaving if they don't actually go there. It's the same a putting words in someone else's mouth.

---

COI This page recently seems to be edited by people on both sides of a dispute, impartial editors may want to keep an eye out on this page for edits that do not fit Wikipedia standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.2.39 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Requested Dispute Resolution

OK. I'm not going to jump on either side of this. Both of you need to take a step back and rethink what you two should do to achieve consensus.

The paragraph should have been a comment in the code, not place a paragraph that has nothing to do with the topic content into the first paragraph. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

EDITORS: Please note that there are SEVERAL actors here, not just two. Please take a look at the edit history. 71.178.115.183 (talk) 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The content you're adding is not remotely neutral. Those who did not support disaffiliation were forced to leave the building and property, and have continued to worship in exile as a Continuing Episcopal congregation in a separate location. Casting one side as refugees and then qualitatively comparing their viewpoints is not any any Wiki-sense of the word neutral. The neutral point of view is about honestly reporting what there is to say about an aticle's subject in reliable sources, and not pushing one point of view or another. And for the sake of argument, the subject of this article is the church that was most recently constructed in the 18th century, and not every church that bears the same name. If you want more information on the split to be presented in this article, then put up some reliable sources; without those, there is no way to determine what the neutral point of view is, and the only solution is to delete the material. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Though I didn't see the language above. Please refer to new language and help begin disambiguation on issues post 2006. Cranmeresque (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the split due to homosexuality? I have heard rumors, but I don't want to change this article unless it's true. That's why I am putting there here in this talk page.Allyn (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

~~More accurately it was due to the homophobia of the former parishioners. Thank God we're moving past that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.111.55 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Percentage of Congregation that Split

The paragraph lead states "a plurality of approximately 20–30% of the canonically eligible members of the congregation (records are unclear) voted to disaffiliate with The Episcopal Church." I'm fairly sure that this information is incorrect. The number that I've heard (I haven't researched it yet) is around 90%. Logically, it does make sense that 30% of the congregation could vote to join CANA and retain the entirety of the Falls Church property. It would seem that if a minority group decided to split off, that they would have to find another place to worship. I'll do research on this and get back.165.13.206.245 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The 20-30% claim is wrong, and should be revised. According to uncontested records filed with the court in the property dispute proceedings, there were 1736 parish members canonically eligible to vote. Of those, 1355 (or 78%) voted. Of those votes, 1228 voted for disaffiliation. That vote was approximately 91% of the total number of votes cast and 71% of total canonically eligible voters. There were 201 additional provisional ballots that were cast, but these were not counted as they would have been irrelevant to the outcome of the vote. Assuming that each one of those provisional votes was a canonically eligible voter voting no, which is extremely unlikely, that still would have meant that the vote to disaffiliate was approved by 63% of all canonically eligible voters, far higher than 20 to 30%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QJX (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue needs just a bit more precision, and a source. "Ninety percent of the congregation" is wrong, if only 78% voted on the issue. "Ninety percent of the congregation that voted" (or some better phrasing) would be correct if the foregoing is true. There's no particular reason to suppose that formulation is factually wrong, but given the many possible denominators here it would be best to have a source for anything that specifies some specific percentage greater than simple majority. JohnInDC (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I undid JohninDC's changes because the vote figures in the report were not contested by the Diocese or the Episcopal Church at trial, and therefore were accepted and affirmed by the court. On whether it's correct to say that there was a 78% or a 90% majority, we don't say that Obama was elected with only 30%, which is the total percentage of eligible voters who voted for him. We say 53%, which was the percentage of the total 2008 vote. I think we should apply the same logic here.

First, a court pleading is not a reliable source. (You need to read that page.) It is advocacy, one litigant's point of view. There are any number of possible reasons that it wasn't contested, truth being just one of them; and a court's adoption of an uncontested fact finally says nothing about the truth of that fact. For purposes of this article the claim remains unsourced. Second, your Obama analogy doesn't hold. He won 53% (or whatever) of "votes cast". Not a 53% majority of "America" or "Americans". If you can think of a way to phrase the statement here to reflect "votes cast" rather than "a 90% majority of the congregation" (which is manifestly incorrect), *and* you can find a proper source for this edit, then feel free to make it. Meantime it is wrong on at least the two foregoing counts and should not be reintroduced. JohnInDC (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Here for example is a proper source that support a 90% claim (of eligible voters, not the whole congregation) for the Truro church that voted that same day: [1]. The Falls Church vote is noted but not quantified. JohnInDC (talk) 03:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

minor edit re: date of re-establishment

Hello. I'm not involved in the church in any way, but in researching Falls Church city history, I ran across what looks like a reliable source for the year of re-establishment of the church, in 1836. The source (cited) definitely has a point of view on what this means for the current controversy, but the research (that the church was fairly well abandoned from 1784 to 1836) seems in line with what was already in the wiki entry, just more precisely. Troutfang (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This info is confirmed, more or less, in Steadman. I'll add in some of his detail w/ citation.Troutfang (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Citations lacking

The current history of the church site/building & its occupation seems to be taken straight from the website of The Falls Church and it has no citations whatsoever. I'm going to start working in citations where I can, including correcting some info when necessary. I'll leave intact, for the moment, what can't be verified, but at some point some info may need to be deleted if it can't be confirmed in secondary sources.

For the very recent history, although it seems fairly neutral at this point (I appreciate the process the editors went through to achieve this), there are still no citations for anything. Could those in the know add them? I have some from major press coverage, and I've tried at least to link to other Wiki pages (on CANA, etc.); if editing that, I'll try to tread lightly, but it seems citations are needed and some detail would be useful to those not in the know, if it can be cited to external sources.

By the way, I am not a member of either congregation and have no stake in the current controversy. Troutfang (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent controversy rewrite - with citations - comments?

I wrote up this version of the recent history for the City of Falls Church Wiki entry. I tried to straighten out the associations, etc., and to rely on what seemed most factual in the news reports. I'll try it out here. Anyone care to comment? I think this section really needs a more fully cited recitation of events.Troutfang (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In December 2006, a majority of voting members of The Falls Church voted to disaffiliate with The Episcopal Church in the United States of America (ECUSA) and join the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), a missionary initiative of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, another member of the Anglican Communion (of which ECUSA is also a member), but one which does not recognize ECUSA. In 2009, CANA joined with others to form the Anglican Church of North America, which is not a member of the Anglican Communion.Michelle Boorstein, "Episcopal Churches To Vote on Departure; Fairfax Congregations Dismayed by Direction," The Washington Post, 4 Dec. 2006, p. A01 Michelle Boorstein, "Trial Begins in Clash Over Va. Church Property," The Washington Post, 14 Nov. 2007, p. B01 The Falls Church members remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church are now known as The Falls Church (Episcopal) and worship at Falls Church Presbyterian Church across the street. National news media have followed the ensuing lawsuit over parish property, including the historic church site itself. In December 2008, courts ruled in favor of the separatist group, citing state laws, but the Diocese of Virginia and the Protestant Episcopal Church have appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.Michelle Boorstein, "Judge Rules For Dissidents In Episcopal Property Fight," The Washington Post, 20 Dec. 2008

Here are the citations I'm using here:

Michelle Boorstein, "Episcopal Churches To Vote on Departure; Fairfax Congregations Dismayed by Direction," The Washington Post, 4 Dec. 2006, p. A01.

Michelle Boorstein, "Trial Begins in Clash Over Va. Church Property," The Washington Post, 14 Nov. 2007, p. B01.

Michelle Boorstein, "Judge Rules For Dissidents In Episcopal Property Fight," The Washington Post, 20 Dec. 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/19/AR2008121901580.html).Troutfang (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

I am proposing that the articles on The Falls Church (Anglican) and The Falls Church (Episcopal) be merged into this parent article. The information in the three articles largely overlaps, and is not enough to justify splitting due to content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at too closely but it seems to me that The Falls Church and Falls Church (Episcopal) could be / should be merged now that it's clear that the Episcopal faction will be remaining at the original property. On the other hand now that FC Anglican is off on its own, and its connection to the Church building is historical and receding, maybe it warrants its own article still. (With a lot of cleanup and some references, sheesh - the article's not a place for propagation or prostelytizing). JohnInDC (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with JohnInDC for the merge of The Falls Church (Episcopal) into The Falls Church if the Falls Church (Anglican) had made the decision of not going to appeal with the US Supreme Court. Since they have not made such decision yet, and are still reserving themselves the right to go to the US Supreme Court, the merge proposed by John is most likely what is going to end up making sense, but for now is probably premature. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, referring to the breakaway group as Anglican is confusing because both churches belong to the global Anglican Communion, of which the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States is the principal national body. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, no. As the article explains, the Falls Church (Anglican) does not belong to the Anglican Communion. It rather belongs (through the Anglican Church in North America), to the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, the global network of conservative Anglican churches which formed in 2008 as a split from the Anglican Communion. --Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Curious, what is the difference between "Anglican" and "Episcopal"? Isn't Episopal just the American name for Anglican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 05:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree that The Falls Church (Episcopal) should be merged into this article. Is there anywhere else in Wikipedia where there are separate articles for a church building and the congregation that worships within it? I understand the legal issue caused a problem, but that is now resolved. On the question of whether The Falls Church (Anglican) should be merged, I don't have a strong opinion. If it continues as an independent congregation, and especially if it builds or acquires its own building, it should probably have its own article. If it fades in importance, or members disperse to other churches, then it probably does not need an article.Dunncon13 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree - now that the Episcopal Congregation and the church building are reunited there's no reason for separate articles. JohnInDC (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the The Falls Church (Episcopal) a little more carefully, I really see nothing there that is 1) not present here or 2) appropriate for inclusion. We don't need for example a listing of the doctrines of a traditional Episcopal Church here - particularly in an article that focuses on the building. I found one useful ref there and added it here, and, absent objection in the next couple of days will redirect that article to this one. JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I redirected The Falls Church (Episcopal) to here, and removed the merger template discussion from here and The Falls Church (Anglican). JohnInDC (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it called "Falls Church"? Is there a particular waterfall referenced?

I came to this page looking for an explanation for out-of-town friends for why we in VA have an otherwise backward-sounding city named "Falls Church" rather than the usual "Church Falls" construction. Answers? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homemadev (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It is called "The Falls Church" because it was the church near "The Falls", that is, the Great Falls of the Potomac. Robert McClenon (talk)

Plagiarism

Most of the "The Falls Church" page's content is an exact copy of the home page at http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/. There is too much material copied verbatim while not a single reference is given to the actual page it was copied from. The material copied word-for-word starts at "The New Brick Building" and it ends only where "Legal issues" starts (close to the bottom). Only some bold sections' content headings have been slightly modified, but the entire content under these sections remain exactly the same as the source (ie. http://www.thefallschurch.org/history/ ). If one editor is to copy the same material from another website, the least the editor should do is to place the material within quotations and then cite the source; but there is just too much material copied to make it a citation. To learn more, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism 179.159.181.96 (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup. I'd noticed this before and then forgot to do anything about it. I took a crack at rewriting some of the sections - did it without reference to the source, so that I wouldn't be tempted to follow it, but I may not have fixed it well enough. If anyone would like to spend some more time with it, feel free. I also completely removed the more extensive section about the church and grounds because it appeared to be a straight lift from the source and I didn't feel like going through it line-by-line to fix it. Thanks for the reminder. JohnInDC (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)