Talk:Anglican Church in North America/Archive 3

Apparent OR in discussion of "dissolved" ordination
The passage about a case of Holy Orders being "dissolved" cites a letter from a bishop to the former minister in the case. The letter is cited from a copy stored on Google Drive. There are some problems with this material and the citation.

The letter is unpublished primary source material, so the discussion of it in this article constitutes what Wikipedia calls "original research". This is contrary to WP guidelines: see WP:OR. If there is a publication of journalistic quality discussing the case, that would be a suitable source to use in discussing the topic here. -- Bistropha (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ministry partners
Hi,. I just want to address the subject of your recent edit summary (What are you smoking? "An entity such as a seminary, monastic order or ministry organization, or a Diocese, congregation or other entity that is not a member of the Church, may apply in writing to the Council to become associated with the Church as a Ministry Partner. " How is that not clear?). I think you are quoting a source other than that which you are citing. Unlike the 2009 ACNA constitution, the 2014 revision that you cited has a much more narrow definition of the term ministry partner, as we can see in title I, canon 7. Could we confirm that we are looking at the same documents? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are correct, 142.160.89.97. I apologize. However, wouldn't it have been more constructive to simply rewrite the entry to say "ministry partners and affiliated ministries" rather than slap a verification needed tag? Ltwin (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, – apology accepted. And it was verification failed as opposed to verification needed, but you're right, fixing a problem is always preferable to merely identifying it. I didn't plan on rewriting the paragraph at that particular moment, but I hoped that myself or someone else would handle the issue in the future, now that it had been identified. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained reversions
Hi,. I'm wondering what's with all of the unexplained reversions. cc: 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello. I really think its quite unnecessary to present such a long disclaimer: "Not to be confused with the Anglican Church in America or the Conservative Anglican Church of North America, nor with the churches of the Anglican Communion in North America, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church (United States), the Anglican Church of Mexico, the Anglican Church in Central America, and the Church in the Province of the West Indies." This almost sounds ridiculous. I think the ACNA is more likely to be confused with the Anglican Church in America. There is no need for such a long disclaimer. Do you agree?Mistico (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I do. As I noted in one of my edit summaries, Anglicanism was traditionally synonymous with communion with Canterbury, as was made clear by various Lambeth Conference resolutions amongst other things. Especially given the proliferation of the (inaccurate) term the Anglican Church to refer to the churches of the Anglican Communion collectively (and occasionally to Anglican churches in general collectively), one could easily mistakingly believe the article to be either about the church(es) of the Anglican Communion in North America or about Anglicanism in North America in general, if one were to take the title in isolation.


 * With respect to the Conservative Anglican Church of North America, given that the ACNA is frequently described as "the conservative Anglican Church in North America" to contrast it with the US Episcopal Church, one who is unfamiliar with the subject could easily confuse the two prepositions.


 * And I think Ltwin and I had reached a consensus on the matter through editing. The reality is that hatnotes are cheap.


 * But I wasn't referring solely to that unexplained reversion. I was asking about the unexplained reversions generally, including this one and this one. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 23:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There having been no reply, I will reinstate it. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone would mistakenly come to this page when they intended to go to the Anglican Church of Canada, the Episcopal Church (United States), the Anglican Church of Mexico, the Anglican Church in Central America, or the Church in the Province of the West Indies. The names are significantly different. There is no need for such a long hatnote. Indyguy (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

French and Spanish translations
Why exactly do we need the French and Spanish translations of the church's name in the lead? Ltwin (talk)


 * The Spanish translation doesn't even match the name used in the church's own translations. Since it's unsourced, removing is probably appropriate. — D. Wo. 16:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Gender and biological sex
The end of the lede states the ACNA's position on the 'divisive' social issues in Anglicanism, and mainline versus Orthodox/Catholic/Evangelical social teaching and doctrine: women's ordination, SSM, and when can innocent human life be intentionally taken. I added a sentence into that mix on the gender question, which as everyone knows is also now in that mix of issues, both within and without the Church. Like all the other issues above, the ACNA takes the opposite view than its mother churches, the Episcopal Church and the ACC. For all these reasons, the ACNA's position on the gender question ought to go in the lede within those other issues. It makes no sense to have women's ordination, SSM, and life there, but then leave out the gender question.

I added the below, and some version of this should be left unless or until a better source is found: In 2017, the ACNA's Archbishop Foley Beach co-signed an ecumenical public statement stating that "the socio-cultural reality of gender cannot be separated from one’s sex as male or female."

The reason for removal was that it is "not an ACNA document." Well, it is a statement by the Archbishop - the head of the denomination -, which amounts to meaningless nuance. As well, the fact it was the Archbishop who made the statement was mentioned in the sentence as drafted.

(1) The gender question in society and Western Christianity is now one of the 'hot button' social issues, like life, SSM, and women's ordination. There's really no one serious who disagrees about that out there. (2) The ACNA's position differs on this issue than it's mother churches. (3) 'Hot button' issues where the ACNA and its mother churches disagree are all described in the lede. Therefore (4) The ACNA's position on the gender question should also be added to the lede. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7B91:5600:B98F:DC4A:43C7:B206 04:00, August 14, 2020

Description in opening sentence
I just reverted an addition of the adjective "conservative" in the opening sentence because it linked to political conservatism which isn't really an ACNA tenet. Certainly the ACNA is 'doctrinally' conservative as compared to TEC or ACC but that's not really the same thing. I am not sure what word and or wikilink might work Fundamentalist and Evangelical are both too politically loaded and generally refer to movements that have a much longer history of conflict the Mainline Protestantism than the majority of ACNA which only distinguished itself relatively recently. My tentative preference is to leave out the adjective and have the discussion on the lead explain the theological positioning, but I am not irrevocably opposed to one; I just want it to be as accurate as possible. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)