The only place I can think a MacDonald would be ‘indigenous’ to would be the pass of Glencoe.
Aren’t most Canadians ‘indigenous’?

Everybody came from somewhere else, back to Adam.  But some were the first to arrive, and others came later.  Sometimes the later arrivers were sent packing, sometimes they came and stayed—and made enough of an impact to leave their names and culture (somewhat changed) as the dominant culture of the area.

My objection was to the fey word, which presumably means ‘mixed race’. ANYBODY born in a place is ‘indigenous’ to it.

The interesting question for Anglican’s in New Zealand is:

Is their loyalty first to Christ, or first to their ethnicity?

The fact that the church has split itself into three based upon ethnicity seems to answer that. It is hardly consistent with “neither Jew nor Greek…” nor with “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, etc”. However, since they can’t see each other as equal Christian’s I suppose apartheid is better than coming to blows.

Actually the concept of three separate “Tikanga” in the same geographic area, each with its own hierarchy, rules etc and each not able to impose upon the other, is an interesting thought for the American church. Could there not be a “Tikanga” for the rappraisers and a “Tikanga” for the reasserters. RW and KJS could hardly say it was an “innovation” since New Zealand did it first—and no one objected there.

MargaretG (#4),

You raise an interesting question.  And it may be that Bp. MacDonald himself may represent a somewhat similar example, since he apparently oversees ministry to “indigenous” or “aboriginal” or “native” or “first nations” peoples throughout Canada.  I admit that I don’t know enough about the ACoC north of the American border to know if that’s a merely administrative type position in the national staff (as I suspect) or if it involves real judicatory authority across diocesan lines.

But ultimately, your suggestion of separate, overlapping jurisdictions or tikanga for reapparisers and reasserters would never work, since we are dealing with two incompatible and mutually exclusive worldviews and religions in the case of the divide between the rival groups.  It is only IN CHRIST that there is no Jew or Gentile, no slave or free, no young or old, no rich or poor, no male or female etc.  And the sad fact is that the reappraisers are, alas, no longer in Christ or Christians at all.

Bottom line: Doctrine trumps polity.  Not vice versa.  This is the fundamental point that must be stressed over and over.

David Handy+