Talk:Anglican Church in North America/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

POV

Here we go. The "ACNA" says it's a province, but has not been approved as such in the way required. The Archbishop of Cantebury remarked that the process takes years, and has not even been begun. There are other problems, but this is at least the first. Tb (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable for this article to say that the ACNA hopes to be recognized as a province of the Anglican Communion, but it is not reasonable for it to say that it is one. The provinces of the Anglican Communion are recognized only as such after a vote by the ACC and a confirming vote by two-thirds of the primates. The Archbishop of Canterbury notes that the process has not even begun, and it is wildly presumptive to write a claim in Wikipedia as if it had already finished. Tb (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Offensive comments

It is offensive and inappropriate to write as if the Episcopal Church is "censoring" anything. This is simply a personal attack upon editors who may disagree. Wikipedia is governed by existing standards, and an accusation of that sort is an inappropriate personal attack and should not be made. Tb (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Objectionable sentence

I object to the sentence: "The motivation for creating the new Province is that member churches believe that TEC and the ACC have abandoned the faith in favor of a liberal ideology foreign to Christianity that, if taken seriously, would make salvation impossible." The three references cited do not support this statement:

• The world almanac page has nothing to do with this article. Why on earth is it there?
• The LA Times article says "Leaders of the new Anglican Church in North America said they took the extraordinary step to unify congregations and dioceses that had fled the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada over issues of Scripture."
• The Irish Times article says "The rebels, who claim the new denomination will have 100,000 members compared with more than two million in the Episcopal Church, believe the mainstream church has moved away from traditional Christian teaching. Their rebellion has focused in recent months on the ordination of an openly gay bishop and the blessing of gay unions."
• But the sentence speaks of making salvation "impossible"--while none of the sources even mention salvation. None of them speak of "ideology". And none say what "the motivation" was, but instead, simply report what the leaders say.
• I propose then, that the sentence be changed to read "the leaders of the new group believe that the mainstream church has moved away from traditional Christian teaching", which basically exactly reports what the Irish Times article says. Tb (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That will be great! Ltwin (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change. Tb (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the dispute might be over what constitutes "traditional Christian teaching", rather than over the question of whether "the mainstream church" has developed historically (also known as "moving") or not. So maybe "The mainstream church has moved in a direction which the leaders of the new group believe is away from what they consider to be traditional Christian teaching" or something like that would be a bit more precise. Bhuck (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dwindling membership"

The word "dwindling" is POV; there have been membership declines--but also in some conservative churches. Regardless, if we had the leaders of the ACNA saying "this is why we created this new church", that would be on topic here. Instead, the article broadly says "The Province finds inspiration in..." (as if the mainstream churches did not), and repeats the bromide that the mainsteam churches have "rejected" those things, which (1) they have not, and (2), goes beyond what the leaders of the ACNA say.Tb (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Following on the above, I propose to change the text, "The church finds inspiration in what – as they believe – are the unchanging Christian Gospel, faith, morals, and order of worship that have been rejected by aging institutions, such as the Episcopal Church in the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Church of England, all of which face dwindling membership." to be an additional phrase on the preceding sentence, thus reading "Leaders of the new group believe that the mainstream church has moved away from traditional Christian teaching, and are no longer willing to serve in obedience to structures they view as corrupt." I think this adequately explains the point in fair an NPOV terms. Tb (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable paragraph, though a reference to the decreasing membership of ECUSA wouldn't necessarily be out of place. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it wouldn't be out of place, but I'm a little stymied by the right way to phrase it. The point is that some of the breakaway leaders have named it as an issue, or a reason, or a sign for something, but they are generally vague about just what they are saying. If we are similarly vague, then we fail our purpose. Tb (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"First female primate"

In the absence of a statement that the gender of the primate of the Episcopal Church is a factor in their decision, a sentence identifying that as the time of the new church's creation is inappropriate, suggesting that it was a factor. If Duncan believes that the gender of the primate is a factor, he hasn't said so, and it is therefore no more relevant than pointing out that the new church was formed after the election of Barak Obama. I propose therefore to delete the sentence in question. Tb (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If its not sourced then go ahead. If a source comes up then we can add it back later! Ltwin (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've made the change. Tb (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Structure of ACNA?

If there is information available about the structure of ACNA -- comprising multiple denominational churches and groups of congregations/parishes -- it would be worth documenting in this article. As of January 2009, there is some interest and confusion about this subject. Regards. Chonak (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I heard is that it is comprised of networks of churches, which could be organized by geography or by preferences such as Anglo Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic, etc. Haven't heard anything about different denominations. I was under the impression that most members of common cause were Anglicans. Ltwin (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether it is a church, or simply a network of churches, is, I think, the salient one here. Despite its name, it seems not to be a church, but instead the various member churches have their own synods, conventions, or whatever sorts of governing bodies, separately. But because it is so new, maybe it is still being organized with a greater unity?--Bhuck (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that is probably true. My impressions were that local parishes will have the choice to affiliate with whatever network or association they want and that these networks/associations will fulfill the role of the traditional dioceses. And I think an even greater indicator of what the structure might be is that the higher bodies will not hold local church property in trust. This is a fundamental difference from TEC as it means that a local church want feel as obligated to stay if they disagree with how things are going. Ltwin (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The Provisional Constitution is here [1]. Scroll down to the Structure of the Province section for an outline of its structure. I'll put this information in the article when I have time later today. Ltwin (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I revised the section on ACNA structure the other day to clarify the relation of ACNA, the member dioceses/networks, and congregations. Hope it helped. Chonak (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Relations with other churches

Despite the ongoing recentism of this section, an editor believes it is crucially important to list every press release. i've changed the style from a recitation of press releases into a statement of present facts, in accord with a more encyclopedic style. i also have added information about what the new church is not in communion with, and why, to avoid the article's conveying the impression to the untutored that the ACNA is just on the verge of being recognized by any of the instruments of unity. Tb (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably the 'editor' to whom you refer - When the leaders of the majority of church going Anglicans make public statements about their relations with ACNA it should be noted in this section, to do otherwise leaves a false stagnant impression. Bo (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM is still relevant. We describe the state of reality, as it is, and not news releases, or language which only makes sense at a particular time. Note that what you say is only relevant at a particular moment in time: shortly after the statement is made--and not later. That's exactly what makes it recentism. Tb (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Some details in the article are only of transient significance: they reflect a temporary status, and then they get superceded. For instance, an event is scheduled and announced; and eventually it happens. In between, a write-up of that in-between status is added to the article, and remains too long. I think it's reasonable to include some transient changes in a developing story, if they are of sufficient importance (a matter of opinion) and as long as they eventually get dropped when they're no longer of importance. I know of one instance I can edit out right away, so I'll do that. Chonak (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I revised after your edit, aiming to stick to a simpler statement of facts, without explanations that could seem contentious. Chonak (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The overlapping jurisdictions point is still relevant; it deceives the reader to leave the impression that "recognition" does not amount to a radical change in the nature of Anglican polity. If there are objections to mentioning this, I would like to hear them, or we should add the relevant explanation back in. Tb (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not aware of any real proposal to the organs of the Anglican Communion to accept ACNA; if that ever happens, then there will be a controversy that can be described in this article. Until then, I don't believe it's encyclopedic to describe potential conflicts and arguments based on speculated future proposals. Chonak (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Detail: "representing"

One of Tb's edits changed "51 bishops representing more than 600 congregations" to "fifty-one bishops". The summary said: again, the "representing" language is no good, unless these folks think the Episcopal Church represents them, eg. Can you explain the reasoning further? I don't understand the objection. Chonak (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The strategy is to say that a primate "represents" everyone in his area, or that a bishop "represents" the congregations, and whatnot, and then to make it sound as if there is a huge groundswell of support. (See the previous repeated attempts to tell us how many Anglicans the GAFCON primates "represent".) That language is only plausible if it works both ways: if we can also conclude that the Episcopal Church "represents" every Episcopalian--or that the Anglican Consultative Council "represents" every Anglican whatsoever. Shall we tote up how many Anglicans are "represented" by the ACC, and how many are "represented" by GAFCON, and notice that the former is much larger than the latter? Some of the people in organizations part of the ACNA are also members of the Episcopal Church: are they willing to own +KJS as someone who "represents" them? I suspect rather not, and, more to the point, it's entirely irrelevant. The authority that this or that ecclesiastical figure possess has nothing to do with how many people they claim to "represent". Tb (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm not looking at this from the viewpoint of ecclesiastical authority: to me this is just a movement of people creating a new structure or denomination. In that context, the number of congregations is a point worth including.

But I get your argument: you're seeing "represent" as a claim to legitimacy, and you're not convinced that the claim is justified. Let's leave aside the GAFCON primates example, because I wasn't asking about that one. I was asking about the 51 bishops at the Common Cause meeting. There's a difference between the two cases.

I'll contend that the word 'represents' is appropriate for the Common Cause bishops, in general. The groups involved have either been invented for the purpose of the Anglican realignment or supported it; the dioceses involved (via ACN) have supported it through democratic means (diocesan convention votes, etc.). Are there any exceptions? There might be one or two. Chonak (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Iker does not, did not, and cannot "represent" every Anglican or every congregation in the his diocese, and it is incorrect to conclude that every congregation in it supports this action or any other particular action. The bishops in GAFCON are not representatives of anyone. If we have a verifiable source which can tell us exactly what number of congregations support a specific action, then we could list that, but it is incorrect to write as if the number of congregations under his authority (or supposed authority) were supporters of this or any other specific action, and that is what the number counting is designed to suggest. Tb (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's another way to put it. If we want to say that these folk "represent" more than six hundred congregations, surely we should point out that Katherine Jefferts Schori and Fred Hiltz "represent" nearly nine thousand congregations as being opposed to the formation of the ACNA. Tb (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think your standards as applied to Iker are a bit too absolute to be realistic. Nobody has unanimous support. Yet elected legislators in the U.S. are said to "represent" districts, despite the lack of unanimity among the voters. Similarly, I have no objection to someone writing that KJS represents the Episcopal Church, or represents 9000 congregations. I don't know if the congregations have expressed themselves opposed realignment, but if they have, then why not say that she represents their views? Chonak (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Chonak has put the six hundred number back in, without the representation language. On the assumption that such numbers carry any meaning, it is valueless to have them without any context. The useful comparison is the number of Anglican congregations in North America, so I've added that too. (Actually, this is still misleading, b/c the ACNA congregations have a smaller average size, but it's harder to get the membership statistics from them.) Tb (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems you're placing ACNA in the context of the Episcopal Church; is that reasonable? ACNA is not part of the EC. When describing ACNA, describe ACNA. Chonak (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, it's in a section about the idea that the ACNA will be be recognized as an Anglican province in North America. The ACNA was created out of reaction to the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. If the number of Anglican congregations these primates superintend is relevant, surely also is the number of Anglican congregations the objecting primates superintend. Or is it relevant when interloping primates from other countries say "yay!" but irrelevant when the local Anglican primates say "nay!"? I would be happy to drop all this pointless counting up, but I'm not at all happy with counting up "yays" and then ignoring "nays". Tb (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. It's an article about ACNA. So the number of congregations in the dioceses that these people led in 2007 is entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is the number of congregations now in the ACNA. I would welcome a verifiable source for that number. Failing it, we shouldn't have any at all. Tb (talk) 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Number-counting

Here's the deal. If obsessive number-counting is what we're going to do, then we're going to do it across the board. If the number of Anglicans in Nigeria is relevant on the "pro" side of ACNA, then the number of Anglicans in the US, Canada, England, Scotland, Wales, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Mexico, etc., is relevant on the "no" side. If the number of North American bishops who like ACNA is relevant, then the number of North American bishops who don't like it is also relevant.

What is relevant, of course, would be actual membership numbers for ACNA. The problem is that several of the organizations are rough alliances of congregations, many of whom have no expressed wish to leave the Episcopal Church and join ACNA. We would need a list of members of congregations which have membership in ACNA, but not membership in the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada.

And, finally, all these number-counting changes are objectionable; except for actual verifiable, non-OR, statistics, from neutral sources, about the membership of ACNA, the rest is, in my opinion, off topic and irrelevant for this article. Before further attempts to slide in numberism, let me here declare in advance my objection to all that, and request good faith discussion by the proponents of the numbers before trying to figure out other ways to make the group look big and important by the citation of irrelevant statistics. I am particularly bothered that User:Bo has seen fit to comment only once, compared with about a dozen edits attempting to add numerology to the article. Tb (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User Bo didn't notice the 'numerology' debate here. I had no intention of 'bothering you' - only of bring the article up-to-date (no one fussed when I used a PR to update the article on Katherine_Hancock_Ragsdale), and of supporting the mention of Nigeria separately from the rest of the FCA Province Primates, as it no longer stands alone, its status as '#2 (or #1 based on who you count) seemed worthy of mention. Bo (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No trouble at all in noting that it has declared itself to be in communion. Its size is, in my opinion, not relevant: or else, as I explain, the size of those who are not in communion--overwhelmingly more--is equally important. Tb (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tb, of the Top Five (In terms of members), four Primates are in communion with the fully Anglican ACNA. I'd be pleased to see that list of Primates and their communion status with the Anglican Churches in North America Listed... Bo (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"In communion with" is a relation between churches, not individuals. I don't know what you mean by "fully Anglican"; it clearly doesn't mean "part of the Anglican communion", but that's neither here nor there. If those primates' churches were in communion with the ACNA, we'd hear about it, and it should be listed. Tb (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable statistics on the size of ACNA (or the groups in the process of forming it) would indeed be good material. Also, numbers connected with events are appropriate. The problem with reporting a count of ACNA opponents (so far) has been this: that number is not associated with an event. If the EC or someone else has a meeting, a statement, a resolution regarding ACNA -- then that is an event; that is potential encyclopedia material. If ACNA opponents merely exist and don't manifest themselves by some verifiable event regarding ACNA, then the number doesn't belong in the ACNA article. Chonak (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

When I mention and link events I get 'rubbed' for 'recent-ism'. Bo (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The size of the church in Nigeria is not a size "connected with events"--unless, that is, you think that whenever mentioning group X is relevant, it is also relevant to mention the size of group X. In that case, since it is surely relevant that the ACNA is not in communion with the overwhelming bulk of the Anglican Communion, it is relevant to say just how overwhelming that bulk is. Tb (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

TB, Your recentism comment was directed at me when I added FCA link. Bo (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not put the size of the Nigerian church in either, so I think we agree on that call. OTOH, the number listed for the ACC "2,8884" is impressive.  :-) Chonak (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, fixed. :) Tb (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Size of the church in nigeria

There is of course no dispute about the notability of the recognition by the church of Nigeria. The edit log saying that the size of the church of Nigeria was relevant because it would "Clarify why recognition by Nigeria is notable" is specious in my view. But, if it must be there, then we need also to cite the total membership of the other sixty million or so Anglicans, and also give a list of the provinces who have not given recognition. Tb (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With the Gafcon/FCA statement Nigeria is no longer the only province recognizing ACNA. What remains notable is the second largest (by members) province being in full communion. I attempted to avoid the 'numbers controversy' by listing it as both first and second. Bo (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gafcon/FCA is not a province. Provinces establish a relationship of full communion by voting one, not by having meetings vote that something is "really Anglican". Tb (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Build a Chart?

A chart something like the following might be useful if extended to include all the provinces:

Province	Size (Membership / Average Weekly Attendance)	Communion Status with ACiC/ECUSA	Communion Status with ACNA	Status Given by
Church of England	26 Million / 1.2 Million	Full	NONE	Synod & Primate (Archbishop of Canterbury)
Nigeria	17.5 Million / 16.5 Million	Impaired	Full	Synod & Primate
Uganda	8 Million	Impaired	Full	Primate
Kenya	2.5 Million	Impaired	Full	Primate
Kenya	2.5 Million	Impaired	Full	Primate

What do you think? It would cover the 'relationship' within the communion pretty well.... Sorry forgot to sign, and to indent... Bo (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the statement of the FCA primates sufficient to bring their churches into communion with ACNA? I would have expected that it requires an act of each synod. Chonak (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I've not seen the Canon for the all the Churches involved. If they are 'hierarchical' wouldn't it follow that if the Primate is communion, the church is? The statement by the primate's council "As a result of this process, we celebrate the organization and official formation of ACNA around the same principles that gave rise to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) and now the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA). Though many Provinces have expressed impaired or broken communion with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, our fellowship with faithful Anglicans in North America has remained steadfast." Implies they speak for their provinces... [Unsigned comment by User:Bo 04:33, 21 April 2009]

Given the fuzziness of language in many church statements, it's better to go by what is expressly declared, and not rely on anything ambiguous. As far as I can tell, that declaration looks like a statement of support, not a formal act by any of the churches. Incidentally, some churches may hold off any act of recognition/communion until ACNA's first convention. Chonak (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"In communion with" is about churches, not individuals. And, in any case, this article is not about Uganda, or the "anglican realignment", or whether Kenya is in communion with the Episcopal Church. It's about ACNA. Who is in communion with the ACNA and who is not is relevant. I would prefer not to get into the ridiculousness of citing made-up numbers (such as, for example, the size of the Church of Nigeria, which is, as it happens, based upon no actual evidence at all). But if we're going to cite them, we should cite them as well to show how small they are. Being "in communion with" is a formal action; vague statements of general support do not amount to full communion. And if we are going to have "vague statements" of support, then it's also time to list the overwhelming majority of Anglican provinces which have not done so. What I object to is the one-sidedness of thinking that anything that makes ACNA look good is apropos, and whatever makes it look like schismatic nutcases is somehow not. I insist that whatever one-sided statements are here from the pro-ACNA camp be balanced by the overwhelming predominance of anti-ACNA sentiment, both in the US, and in the majority of Anglican provinces worldwide. Tb (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1) When the indviduals are Bishops invited to Lambeth, they form one of the Four Instruments of Communion.

2) The BBC shows more Anglicans in Nigeria (17.5, just like the number I typed in!) than the UK. Not that the BBC is 'reliable' actual evidence, mind. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3226753.stm

3) Uh, they're not really all that small....

4) They didn't make a vague statement. read the reference.

5) Do the the body counts there too - I did suggest completing the chart for all the provinces, It would be a rather important to know about a group that claims to be Anglican, which provinces accept it as truly 'Anglican'...

6) Why not work to complete the chart - it would give a very conscise view of who, where, and howmany accept ACNA as 'truly Anglican'. Bo (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not think a chart of membership of the provinces of the Anglican Communion is necessary or relevant to an article about the ACNA. This seems like overkill to prove which side has the most support from within the Communion. Ltwin (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the chart was to show the relations with other churches, not whose 'got the most support' - 'support' within the communion doesn't matter unless there is a vote in the ACC or the AC Primates Council. ACNA could have 'full communion status' from everyone except TEC, and it wouldn't matter until ACC voted, and the ABC sent out the Lambeth 2018 invitations, the Instruments of Communion (not support by provinces) are what matters within the communion Bo (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I understand that. What I don't understand is why is this chart necessary? Why is it necessary that the reader knows every anglican province's opinion of the ACNA? On most wikipedia articles on denominiations, it mentions what other denominiations or organizations the subject is affiliated or in communion with. Can't we mention the provinces and organizations that have entered into communion with them and leave it at that. We don't need a list of every province of the communions opinion of the ACNA. Plus, this table wont tell us anything about the ACNA, it will just waste space. IMHOP, this is not necessary. Ltwin (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the chart having all the AC Provinces in it would be a way to avoid a perception of bias regarding a church claiming to be 'Anglican' when it isn't recognized by the Instruments. The 'relations of a church' with all the components of a communion both positive and negative might be equally important- especially one claiming to be a part of that communion, (A list of showing only those provinces whose primates and / or Synods have declared themselves in communion would, by its nature, leave out those who didn't.) Of course the 'not recognized by the instruments of communion' statement might address that well enough.... Bo (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Continuing Anglicans" are going to continue to call themselves Anglicans, no matter what anyone else does. The most we can do here is explained that the claim is not recognized by the official bodies in the Anglican Communion established to offer such recognition when appropriate. Merely being in communion with Anglican province(s) does not make a church Anglican; the ELCA or the Church of Norway did not become Anglican just because Anglican province(s) established a relationship of full communion. But "continuing Anglicans" don't recognize any of that, and use "Anglican" as a term of history or association or liturgy or something else, and it would be POV for Wikipedia to try to settle the dispute. But it is perfectly fair for Wikipedia to say that a church is not regonized as Anglican by the instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion, at least, in cases where there might be confusion (as with a church with "Anglican" or some-such in its name). Other than that, it is not usual in Wikipedia to cite the size of communion partners, which continues to strike me as a kind of trumpery, attempting to say that the (claimed) size of the Church of Nigeria has anything at all to do with the matter. I think we don't have to worry about a perception of bias in the text as it is now: not recognized by the instruments of communion, not a member of the communion, in communion with the CoN, regarded as "fully Anglican" (whatever that means) by a political pressure group of some members of the Communion. Tb (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuing Anglicans calling themselves Anglican and current primates and synods of recognized provinces calling them 'fully Anglican' aren't the same thing. A primate of a recognized province calling a church 'fully Anglican' cares much more weight than your statement that they are not. Restricting the article to your opinion and excluding information about statements from Primates of the Communion is rather counter to the NPOV position that articles are supposed to represent. As for 'trumpery' if the list has the numbers from the BBC and other 'usually considered reliable' sources for all the provinces, where would your beef be? Using a phrase like 'political pressure group of some members of the communion' to describe the the Primates representing the majority of the communion's church going members reflects a bit of a bias, one that it seems you're also displaying in your edits to the article. Bo (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok about this "who is Anglican and who is not" thing. First of all, its not Wikipedia's job to decide who is Anglican or not. That said, it is clear that at the present time they are not a member province of the Anglican Communion. So we can say they are not part of the Communion, but Wikipedia has no right to decide what they are. If they say they are Anglican then Wikipedia should call them what they call themselves. Ltwin (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to agree that it is important that the Church of Nigeria has declared full ocmmunion with ACNA, that's why it should be in the article. Likewise, it should be there that this GAFCON group has said what it said. And GAFCON is what it is: not an official organ of the Anglican Communion, but a gathering of like-minded people. I would be happy with any wording which made clear that GAFCON is not an official Anglican Communion organ, but rather, a self-selected group of like-minded primates. It's a conference--that's the CON in GAFCON, remember, not a synod or such. But of course its statement should be mentioned, as it is. So, what exactly is wrong with the article as it stands? Continuing to try and prove to me what I already agree to (that Nigeria and GAFCON's recognition should be mentioned) isn't really productive. Tb (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What is missing at present as who the primates making up the GAFCON/FCA council are, and who represent. [Unsigned comment by User:Bo 18:01, 24 April 2009]

Numerology, Trumpery, and Commenting

I believe that the BBC is simply quoting the Church of Nigeria's statistics. The CoN has virtually no statistical procedures at all, and it's not clear at all where or how its membership or attendance numbers are generated. What I object to is here pretty much what User:Ltwin is pointing out: the article is not a place to try and prove who has what support, or argue about it. And, I object to your numerology precisely because it was capable of giving a misleading impression. Nearly all the member bodies of the ACNA are teeny-tiny; if members matter, then the vanishingly small size of some of them is equally relevant. But I believe that numbers are entirely irrelevant here. The schismatics can go ahead and make up whatever numbers they choose, as they have always done; Wikipedia is best advised to stay out of it. As I have stated repeatedly, my preference is for the article not to have any such numerology. But, if User:Bo insists it must be there, then it must be there in such a way so as not to create a misleading impression.

As for in-communion-with, the invitation is given to the bishops of particular churches, in virtue of their office. I'll note that Martyn Minns didn't get any letters from Canterbury; if Jack Iker's invitation constitutes some kind of approval of ACNA, then surely Minns' non-invitation constitutes disapproval. But the game the schismatics play of reading only the statements they like as "approval" and then saying that all kinds of other things constitute "approval" is misleading, and Wikipedia need not repeat the dishonesty. We see this pattern above, in which one Anglican province is in communion with the ACNA, but User:Bo tells us that really three are. Well, no, one is. The fact that a primate has made some approving noise does not mean that he is in favor of ACNA full stop, still less that his church is formally in communion with it, and still less that the instruments of unity have given any recognition to the ACNA. Actually, what counts there is membership in the Anglican Consultative Council. As for this "fully Anglican" talk, the ACNA is "fully Anglican" in whatever sense continuing Anglicans have always made up words to suit themselves: "continuing", meaning schismatic, and "Anglican" meaning "not in communion with the Church of England". Such humpty-dumpty words-mean-whatever-we-say-they-mean is the game they have always played, but Wikipedia doesn't need to copy them.

And finally, User:Bo took it upon himself to edit my comment into pieces, making it seem as if I had written disconnected and isolated bits above, and did such a hash of it that User:Ltwin had to work to at least prevent the most serious misunderstandings that could result. I object. I don't like "sound-bite" editing, and I object to the treatment of my words above which makes my comment seem far more scattered than it actually was. I request that other editors in this discussion not change my comments around. Tb (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

However, I also have something to ask User TB why is there membership numbers for TEC and ACC in the ACNA's article? I suppose we should also lists the TEC and ACC dioceses as well, eh? This is serious overkill coming from both sides of the aisle. Ltwin (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A simple way to solve this problem would be to say "the ACNA has so and so many parishes, or members" and cite a source and leave out TEC, ACC, and Nigeria! Ltwin (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You betcha. We don't have any such numbers, however, and the ACNA hasn't published any. The substitution has been how many members are in Nigeria, or the CCP, or whatever other. I'd be happy to drop all mention of non-ACNA membership. Tb (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

TB, I don't think personal opinion (original research) on the validity of the numbers much matters, It was my understanding that the threshold was 'verifiability' not 'truth'. Everyone 'knows' that there aren't 13 million active Anglicans in the United Kingdom, but those are the numbers reported by a major verifiable news source. In the section 'Relations with other churches' it is appropriate to mention the other churches whose primates and / or synods have declared themselves to be in communion with ACNA. We do have published numbers for the membership of the provinces whose Primates have declared themselves in communion with the ACNA, those provinces (and their membership numbers) are relevant in the 'Relations with other churches' section. Likewise, it isn't your place nor mine to determine what the primates meant by 'fully Anglican' - it is proper to mention that the Primates made the declaration in the 'realtions with other churches' section. It would better if the 'Not recognized as a province by any of the Instruments of Communion' phrase was repeated in that section as well - the relationship between ACNA and the rest of the communion, like that of Episcopal Church (US) and the ACic, is rather 'confusing'. All of the Instruments of Communion are in 'full communion' with TEC, but not all of Provinces are. I put the chart (which makes reference to multiple provinces in communion with ACNA)here and asked for comments, not on the 'real page'. As for provinces in full communion, while the status of those provinces whose Primates issued the statement may not be verifiable, Nigeria is (which is why I put a spot for 'means' in the chart - one can verify that the primates of the provinces whose members constitute majority of the Anglican Communion are in communion with ACNA, and that they've asked the rest of the provinces to join them in this statement, even if their synods have not yet addressed the question. The ACC (already covered under the 'instruments of commuunion') works at the 'communion as a whole' level it does not have any authority over which church or churches the member provinces recognize as being in full communion. The individual provinces can have declared differing levels of communion with other churches, many being in impaired or broken communion with others that are still recognized by all of the instruments of communion. The relations between ACNA and other churches does not rise and fall with the Instruments of Communion. My editing to reply item by item didn't change anything around, though it did break up the paragraph in to smaller bits, all the subsequent poster did was add the posted-by notices. Bo (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we have reached a stall. But the article is, as it is now, acceptable to me. I would prefer to drop the membership numbers toward the end about CCP et. al., in favor of actual numbers--not just addition from member groups!--cited or claimed by the ACNA, which we can report as such. I would prefer to drop the current numbers waiting for the ACNA to release something. If they haven't gotten to the point of toting up membership and whatnot, that's fine, but we shouldn't quote numbers here until they do. So how about it? If we cannot agree to the current text, can you explain specifically what changes you would like to make to it, and we can discuss them individually? And what do you think about dropping both the CCP and other numbers, and add actual ACNA numbers once the ACNA is at a point to announce some? Tb (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll work toward completing the 'relationship chart' with verifiable citations of course :), for inclusion in a 'relations with other churches' section. If one is willing to use 'self reported numbers' some folks associated with ACNA have already posted 'numbers' [2]. [Unsigned comment by User:Bo 03:55, 22 April 2009]

We don't need a "relationships chart". I've heard no other editor suggest that this would be a good idea, and several (including me) suggesting it would not be. Since there are only two actual facts, only one of which is a full communion relation with an Anglican province, the current text accurately captures it. If you are going to argue that the membership of non-ACNA organizations is relevant, then I believe that the other editors who have spoken here have also suggested that we would prefer no non-ACNA numbers. Self-reported numbers by people who are "associated with ACNA" are not the ACNA's numbers; if the ACNA is not sufficiently together to have conducted a census, then it hasn't conducted a census. It's not Wikipedia's job to research the numbers. (Note that there is a problem: many congregations which joined some of the member organizations of ACNA may have no interest in being part of this new ACNA; because of this things are in a transitional state, and it is not proper at all to take member-of-organization-which-joined-CCP as the same thing as being a member of the new ACNA church. I suspect it is awareness of this problem which explains why ACNA has moved slowly in this regard. Presumably they want to get things more in place before they ask churches to specifically sign up one way or the other.) If there are no official ACNA numbers, then there are no official ACNA numbers, and the article should not present some alternative. Note that, for example, the Fort Worth document is prospective, and not based upon actual congregations which have chosen to be part of ACNA, includes congregations which are supposedly part of Southern Cone and not actually ACNA (now), and so forth. These are prospective numbers of what the ACNA "will" be, not what it actually is now. Tb (talk) 04:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about the chart is more properly up in the 'build a chart section'.

Primates declaring themselves in full communion are 'actual facts', published and verifiable. Are you saying that the size of the provinces (both in and not in communion in some form with ANCA) isn't relevant to a church relations section? The size of various churches that have entered into a relationship with ACNA is relevant to its external relations. ACNA's 'internal numbers' might matter to those offering it recognition or they may not.

I've not made any contribution to the 'ACNA internal numbers', other than to point out a 'possibly biased' source of published numbers. The only numbers I've entered have been sourced from BBC or the AC website.

You seem to have confused my interest in the membership of the existing recognized provinces that have offered recognition to the ACNA with an interest in the ACNA 'province in formation' numbers. Getting to published numbers and communion status statements for all the existing provinces will tough enough work. Getting numbers from all the 'diocese, nodes, networks, and associations' that are coming together under the ACNA would be a larger job than I'd be willing to take on. Bo (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then it seems we can drop the CCP membership number and associated bits. Primates declaring themselves in communion are perhaps verifiable, but also indicate a woeful misunderstanding on their part that communion is a relation between churches, not individuals. In any case, listing which individuals are "in communion" with ACNA (whatever that means) is, I believe, tantamount to listing the entire membership of ACNA, and we aren't going to do that. Listing which churches are in communion with ACNA is certainly appropriate; the list is currently "Nigeria". I don't object to listing that at all, provided it's done in the present tense and not as a news chronicle (which is the recentism problem I was referring to). I do object to taking a statement by a GAFCON meeting as if it were a statement by individual primates, and then inferring that it stands for their churches (which have constitutional structures and don't operate just on the say-so of the primate). Tb (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Are you saying that the size of the provinces (both in and not in communion in some form with ANCA) isn't relevant to a church relations section?" Yes, Bo, I think that is what we are saying. Ltwin (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How very odd. Bo (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you disagree, it would be helpful for you to explain why such statistics are relevant for this one church, but not for any of the others in Wikipedia that have such "relations with other churches" discussions. Tb (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other churches that have some but not all primates of the Anglican communion declaring full communion status? I'm not aware of any. This is such an unusual little church, its relationship with the AC and its components is just so complex. Unlike REC, and the St. Louis churches, some their Bishops got Lambeth invitations even after going 'primate shopping', and others have had the communion status recognized after their 'province of original jurisdiction' inhibited them. The church itself, (though still in formation) has been declared 'in full communion' by the polity of an entire province, and by the primates of several more. One could do a study on organizational adaptability and complexity based on this church and its relationships. The closest I could think of would be the 'relationships' among the Orthodox churches (especially the mess with the Russians), and I've not the time nor interest to figure out a chart for them. Sorry, forgot the tildes. Bo (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Episcopal Church is in communion with the ELCA, but no other Anglican province is to my knowledge. Likewise, the four Anglican churches in the British Isles are in communion with the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia, but no other Anglican churches are, to my knowledge. Many of the Orthodox jurisdictions have autonomy or autocephaly disputed--recognized by some Orthodox churches but not others. The ACNA has chosen to bolt ahead, disregarding the established procedures for establishing new Provinces in the Anglican Communion, but it still isn't some totally alien entity. And while there are some differences, I can still see no reason why the sizes of the provinces matter. Of course, we can document the relationships that exist. But why is the size of the Church in Nigeria important, and the number of cows in the Church of England not important? Why is that particular fact about Nigeria relevant, and other facts not? How is size suddenly an important consideration? Tb (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some folks do think the numbers matter. Communion is about the faithful, who is in, and who is out. Factually reporting that information would be a reasonable and worthy thing for all the articles on churches. Bo (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes they matter but for the ACNA, not for Nigeria and England! This is about ACNA, stick to ACNA. Ltwin (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

One can't address communion without addressing both parties to that relationship. ACNA is 'in' communion with the millions in the Church of Nigeria, and 'not in' communion with the Millions in the Church of England. The Primates of FCA/GAFCON represent millions more of the 'in communion' list, as far as I know, only TEC has declared that the ACNA folks are not in communion. (the vast majority of the provinces that aren't part of GAFCON haven't spoken to the issue either way). Bo (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you need to "address" both parties to the relationship, but that doesn't make every fact about one party relevant on a page about the other. It sounds as if you believe that communion with the Church of Nigeria is a kind of badge or award, and a bigger badge than communion with the Nippon Sei Ko Kai would be. Or at least, rather, I don't know if you believe that, but the reader is likely to get exactly that idea. The reader is likely to draw the incorrect conclusion that the size of a communion partner matters in some way. Why does the size of the Church of Nigeria matter, and not, say, the date it was founded or the fact that its Primate went to Virginia Theological Seminary? Tb (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The size of the churches in communion does matter. The number of active church members is the number of people in communion with each other. Rather plainly more directly tied to church relations than the date of founding for the provinces involved. Nippon Sei Ko Kai is no bigger or smaller 'badge' but being in communion with the province of Nigeria certainly indicates a larger relationship. The date of founding belongs in the Province Article, the education of the Primate in his own article. Bo (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does the number matter, and not the ethnicity, educational level, economic status, form of government or anything else? How is number "more directly tied to church relations"? I am quite familiar with many of the details of ecumenical conversations of the Episcopal Church, and the numerical size of a dialogue partner is virtually never a topic of conversation. Why is a "larger" relationship more important than a "smarter" relationship or a "more educated" relationship or a "more ethical" relationship? What would you think if I took the mention of the Church of Nigeria here, and used some of the horridly violent and bigoted statements the Primate of Nigeria has uttered, and used them here as if they were relevant to the ACNA? If you are known by the number of company you keep, are you not also known by their moral character? You still have not said word one about why numbers matter and other things do not: you have simply declared that it is so. I note that, by contrast, the consensus of every other editor in this conversation so far has been that none of those things matter: we make a simple and principled statement that an article about the ACNA is about the ACNA, and not about whether its friends are big and important. (And this is a good thing, because whether the Church of Nigeria is "important" is inherently going to be a giant ball of POV. Consider if we counted the number of doctoral degrees in the various churches; how would GAFCON fare? Tb (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

One is in Communion with People - not Ethnicities, educational levels, or economic status. The better use of horrid statements made by primates - in this article - might be those of the Presiding Bishop about the Bishops who are the leadership of the ACNA, the 'relationship' between TEC and ACNA is anything but 'communion'. One could work in some of the Primate's statements encouraging the formation of a 'new province' though, up in the formation section of the article I suppose - he has been rather blunt about the broken communion between TEC and CoN, and the need for a new province. The number of people involved in a global relationship matter, because each individual matters. As for the 'noted consensus' - that itself reflects a count of people doesn't it, not their educational level, ethnic background, economic status, or anything else. Why does that 'pure number count' matter? (for the same reason that the numbers for the provinces do - because people matter, not their economic, educational, ethnic background. The proposed chart would list all the provinces, I'm not going in for an 'importance' debate on them. Last I checked Degrees don't enter into communion with each other. Bo (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article retain the numbers on CCP congregations. This is the only existing article on the CCP, and Common Cause Partnership redirects here. Therefore, statistics that indicate the size of the CCP belong here.

There will be no clear numbers for ACNA affiliation until after ACNA's first convention, planned to be held by August 2009. Only then will the "founding" of ACNA be really done. If it becomes clear that CCP membership and ACNA membership have become distinct after ACNA's first convention, it may be clearest to separate CCP and ACNA into distinct topics. Chonak (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chonak while I agree with keeping the statistics for the CCP, my problem is having other Anglican churches' statistics also mentioned as if they were relevant to this article. Also you second point begs the question is the CCP going to continue to exist separarte from the new church or is it ceasing to exist with the founding? If some form of the CCP continues outside of the ACNA then yes it should be its own topic. Ltwin (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, Ltwin. Other Anglican churches' stats, whether those churches support or oppose CCP or ACNA, generally don't belong here, except possibly in sections about "Relations with other churches" or "Criticism". I have no info to indicate whether CCP will exist after ACNA launches. Also, at least some member groups constituting CCP will probably continue to exist, but perhaps not all. Chonak (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as if the renaming of this article was premature. (More an attempt to make the ACNA more than it is, perhaps, but who knows.) In any case, User:Ad.minster renamed the article on December 5 last year, and it is now the article on the ACNA, not the article on the CCP. The redirect is for the convenience of the users, but does not change the article's topic. If a new article on the CCP needs to be started, or this needs to be renamed back, then so be it, but this is the article on the ACNA, not on the CCP. Tb (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it was premature too. (However, I have no speculation about other people's motives.) Chonak (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanded lead section

Sweetmoose6's expansion of the lead section on April 24 needs some review. (1) To start with, ACNA hasn't had its first convention yet, and the provisional constitution has not been ratified, so ACNA really doesn't exist yet. When the convention happens, then things will be clearer. (2) The statement of the GAFCON primates is an expression of support, but it doesn't seem to be a formal canonical act establishing communion. (3) The Rick Warren quote is interesting but isn't so important as to belong in the lead. Maybe there should be a section on "Reactions". (4) The talk about "could be considered" and "Some consider it" is weasel wording. Chonak (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; as well, much of this duplicates material already in the article "below the fold"; it's not clear why the lead needs to reproduce many of the main point below (such as the member organizations forming ACNA, the recognitions by Nigeria and GAFCON, etc.) Tb (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The numbers question again

After a while of not looking at this article, I reread and I don't see any big problems. I do, however, think that the numbers in the "Members" section for TEC and ACC should go. As I remember, the reason for including them were because the numbers for churches that supported ACNA were being cited. Now that has been addressed so I don't see the reason why the TEC and ACC numbers should still be here. What does anyone else think? Ltwin (talk) 03:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits on 22 June

I have reversed or edited recent edits. Some of the edits have just been style and arrangement improvements. Some, however, may be disputed. So I give my reasons here. The following was added to the Lead: "and as of 2009, the ACNA has approximately 1/10th the number of parishes compared to the churches it seeks to replace, the Episcopal Church of the United States and the Anglican Church in Canada." The following sources were given: Episcopal membership loss 'precipitous', Church of England 'losing its flock', Plummeting attendance shows Canadian church faces 'extinction', Anglicans escalate split with plan for rival group, and Conservatives who fled liberal views of Scripture have formed a breakaway church in North America.

First, none of these sources say the ACNA "seeks to replace" any province in the Communion. In one source, Bishop Duncan says something like "the Lord is displacing the Episcopal Church", but that is hardly the same thing as what was written in the article. If a source is given that says that they are seeking to replace it then fine, but these sources don't say that. Also, I think there's general agreement that the numbers argument either for or against ACNA is not to be fought in the article. Ltwin (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The amendments were accurate and cited.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1/10th is an approximation of course but is an approximation based on the cited numbers from both sources.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This article also used to say that the ACNA was intended to create a separate Anglican ecclesiastical structure from the ECUSA, but it is hard to follow because people keep deleting all kinds of things about the ACNA.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article still says that. Ltwin (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a busy man. Shouldn't an Anglican body that is already 1/10th size of the current Anglican body in North America, which seeks to replace the ECUSA in North America, be acknowledge by a couple of sentences in the header? Particularly if cited and accurate?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the point. The sources you cite, unless I missed something, did not say that it sought to "replace" TEC and the church in Canada. There is a difference in saying it is going to replace them and saying that it seeks admittance in the Anglican Communion. Ltwin (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm confused. All of what you want mentioned is mentioned in the introduction. Ltwin (talk) 04:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm seriously off my game...I need to go to bed!Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits making article look like news release

Some of the more recent edits, IMHOP, tend to make this article seem like a news release for the ACNA Assembly. Are all of these quotes entirely necessary? Ltwin (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is relevant considering how the Anglican Communion works, and due to all the recent controversy.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I understand that information is needed on how the ACNA is related to the Anglican Communion, etc. But, I'm having trouble seeing what quotes such as these contribute to the article:

• "There is a great reformation of the Christian Church under way. We North American Anglicans are in the midst of it"
• "Our prayers are for you and for the new Province to continue to stand firm in faith as you have always done. May the Lord keep your unity in order to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ in North America!"
• "Today you are making a very historic and apostolic stand. Please be assured of our full and deep communion in the Lord"
• "I send my warmest greetings and congratulations to the new Anglican Province. We recognise that authentic Anglican brothers and sisters have come together in a wonderful new fellowship in the service of the Lord Jesus. We pray that your faithful witness to the gospel will prosper and that as you live under the authority of God’s word you will maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."
• "We wish you to know that we consider it a privilege given by God that we are joyful to be in full communion with you all. We are especially grateful for your unity expressed among Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical traditions, and recognise that this is in part a fruit of the Jerusalem Conference where the Primates present encouraged you to form a new and orthodox entity in North America. You are of course in fellowship with 80% of the Anglican Communion who share with us in the historic orthodox faith. It is for this reason that we call on many more of our brothers and sisters worldwide to affirm that they recognise the authentic marks of the Apostolic church and true Anglican identity in your witness"

Why can't it just be noted that these churches and jurisdictions offered the ACNA its greetings, congratulations, and support? And why is this quote - "I am seeking an ecumenical restoration by being here today...our arms are open wide." - given twice, once in the lead and another time in the inaugural assembly section? Why can't the lead say that he was present and he said he "seeks ecumenical restoration" and then quote fully in the later section. I feel there is no need to use a qoute twice in the same article when we don't need to. Ltwin (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the last first, that sounds like a good idea. That is just a unique situation to see two very diverse traditions engaging one another. Also the third and fifth quotes regarding being in communion are important because of how controversial this is. The fourth recognizes the members of the province as authentic Anglicans even though the province is not officially recognized by Canterbury, which, as I understand it, is how some people view who is Anglican and who is not. The first quote deals with two things, one that in the broader context there is a reformation going on and that this is a part of that overall reformation, which appears to me to be an ecumenical statement, but it might not be. Then, look at the speakers who responded, their context.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And I guess since the province is really only what 2 or 3 days old, there aren't a whole lot of resources to pull from.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that any of this is not important. What I am saying is is how important are all of these qoutes going to be a year or two or five or ten years from now? All of this is recently important, but how many are going to have lasting impact on the history of ACNA? Also, can what you say is important be summarized without qouting each and every leader who made a statement? Ltwin (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbers again . . .

The sarcasm was for free :) but the reason like I said, is that Nigeria and Uganda, just as TEC and Canada's, numbers have nothing to do with the ACNA. If it does and I'm not understanding why churches numbers that aren't even for the subject of the article are important can you explain it to me because I don't see it. This has been argued in the discussions above. And I think everyone came to a good consensus - leave out everyone else's numbers, keeping the focus on the subject of the article, the ACNA. However, if there is a good reason to need to know that Nigeria and Uganda have 26 million members in the ACNA's article then it would help me to know why. I'm not saying this is what anyone is trying to do, but this could be looked at as trying to argue for the ACNA based on its number, which would not be NPOV. That's why it would be helpful for me to know why you want other churches' numbers mentioned. Ltwin (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Glad to. The reason, for one, is that the Anglican church is no exception to the fact that traditional, conservative, evangelical Christianity is growing rapidly in the East, southern hemisphere, and the African continent, while laboring in the "Western" world that gave it shape, because, many theologians would agree, due to a surfeit of wealth and aimless leisure in the West. The astonishing fact here is that 1/3 of the Anglican Communion resides in two African provinces, both of which have recognized the ACNA. It is not merely a numbers issue. It is a recognition of a number of things not to mention reconciliation over issues like slavery etc., and a unity of religion in places one might not think possible given the history. Further due to numbers, Uganda and Nigeria exercise a great deal of authority, therefore recognition by these bodies lends credibility to the province, which has not yet been accepted by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Communion agreements and recognition are important factors to traditional churches, meaning that doctrinally they are close enough to allow members and clergy to participate amongst the churches. Communion with a large body of Anglicans would be important to any member of the ACNA due to history, culture, etc.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And by laboring in the West I don't meant that Christianity is not growing, but there are more stumbling blocks with so many obvious distractions.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

A few days back, I moved the "1/3 of the Anglican Communion" idea down into the section on "Relations with other churches", because while meaningful IMHO it's not so important that it must be in the lead section. Now it's been added back to the lead. Would other editors please indicate a preference? Chonak (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

To me, it is a matter of context given recent developments in the Communion, especially when the Communion appears to be shifting, in terms of numbers, to other parts of the World. This shows how Canterbury may no longer be the de facto seat of the Communion and that the ACNA is aligning with the rapidly growing church throughout the world. Aside from that, how is it not relevant to the opening paragraph that a startup province challenging the ECUSA in North America is suddenly in communion with 1/3 of global anglicans in the first year of its existence? I fail to see why this shouldn't be included in the opening summary.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chonak. If it is going to be in here, it is not important enough to be in the lead. Also, as has been discussed above, it shouldn't be used as an argument for the ACNA, in other words "I have more friends then you do so I must be right".... Ltwin (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

How is it more friends if the ECUSA is currently in communion with the entire Anglican Communion?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument is that while TEC is officially in the Anglican Communion, the vast majority of Anglicans do not agree with what they are doing. Anyway, the argument doesn't have to make sense or be logical for someone to use wikipedia to make it and that is my point. Wikipedia is not an advocate of any position. It would be the same case, as has been done in the past, if someone put TEC's and Canada's membership on this article. Both really are not relevant to the ACNA. I'm not saying the 1/3 comment can't be in the article, what I am saying is we shouldn't make it more important then it is. Ltwin (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. I do think it's meaningful to mention the size of the Nigeria and Uganda churches; on the other hand, the numbers are not details about ACNA itself. I think it is preferable to keep the lead focused on ACNA, and defer incidental details to the body of the article. Chonak (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Right okay, maybe I didn't make that clear. The way I look at it is that it is important when one looks at how hierarchical churches are structured (or were). Stating the ACNA is in communion with 1/3 of the Anglican Communion ("AC") 1) distinguishes it from the continuing anglican movement, which is also outside the AC, but as far as I can tell doesn't seek communion agreements with the provinces in the AC 2) it explains its current status as to the rest of the provinces in the AC 3) I haven't really heard a "reason" for excluding it - as in why it is irrelevant or unimportant that 1/3 of the AC has suddenly recognized a "separate ecclesiastical structure" to the ECUSA, over the same territory (which as I understand it is almost unheard of). So if you can tell me why that is unimportant or irrelevant I would tend to agree with you, but arguments like "numbers again" and who has more friends mischaracterize my position, although I know they were not intended to do that, I probably just haven't made myself clear enough.Sweetmoose6 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was talking about "who has more friends" I was saying that the 1/3 thing is ok, but that we shouldn't turn into an article that talks more about the statistics of other churches then it talks about the important issues. That is all I was saying. Ltwin (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Sweetmoose6, some alternative-Anglican groups have sought agreements with AC churches: e.g., the APA entered into an intercommunion (not full communion) agreement with Nigeria some years ago, as did the REC (not really a continuing-Anglican denomination, of course). I don't know whether these are just exceptions to the general pattern Sweetmoose6 described, or if there are perhaps other cases.

Since we're in agreement to keep the 1/3 idea, would it be agreeable to drop the words "representing approximately 1/3 of the worldwide Anglican Communion," from the lead, inasmuch as the idea is stated fully in the body of the article? Chonak (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Historical Parallel section

Wouldn't this be more appropriate on the Episcopal Church's article? Ltwin (talk) 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I will refrain from explaining why this is neither a proper historical or theological parallel and content myself with remarking that including a comparison that is not discussed in reliable sources is original reseach in violation of policy. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

A user added the section again with references, but I removed it for two reasons: (1) the material is part of EC's history, not ACNA's; and (2) the label "Historical Parallel" is opinion. Chonak (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't have a clue why that was in here. If someone was trying to compare the ACNA to the Confederate Episcopal Church a 150 years ago it was novel, though not particularly well done. If not, then what was the point?Sweetmoose6 (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ACNA dioceses

I've noticed that US dioceses that separated from ECUSA and joined the Province of the Southern Cone were disambiguated with "(Southern Cone)" in their article names. However, these dioceses: Diocese of Quincy (Southern Cone), Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Southern Cone), and Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (Southern Cone) are now all member dioceses of the Anglican Church in North America. Would anyone interested and knowledgeable take a look at these articles and rename them appropriately? I'm personally not sure what would be a good disambiguating phrase. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Some institutions within ACNA also claim membership in the Southern Cone, so it may be premature to perform those moves. -- Chonak (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pittsburgh diocese dropped its dual affiliation in a convention vote this month, so that article has been updated. Chonak (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As of November 30, 2009, the Fort Worth diocese retains its Cone affiliation [3] --Chonak (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

ACNA's web site is supposed to be reorganized soon, and an updated list of dioceses/clusters should appear. - Chonak (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglican Communion Network

I was reading the Anglican Communion Network article just now, and it doesn't seem to have been updated since the ACNA was created. Does anyone know if this organization still exists outside of ACNA? Does it still exist at all? The link to its website goes to the ACNA's official site. If anyone knows please update that page. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3