The new Anglican Province in North America has been slow in starting to move, in the eyes of some of us, but it is now in motion.

And like a glacier, it will be almost impossible to stop. 

The only thing that might stop this glacier will be the warm heat of true, open, repentant and sincere Christian fellowship emanating from the revisionist leadership of ECUSA and the ACinC.

Unfortunately, the only thing things currently emanating from that leadership are unprincipled authoritarianism, coldness of heart and a radical/revolutionary zeal to go forth with their secular agenda by crushing all opposition.

Seems like the train is about to leave the station.  Hopefully, once there is something other than uncertainty more Parishes who long to depart will do so. I pray that the Bishops of the various Anglican entities will be able to give up their control unto God and the new entity and that a coherent decision on WO can be found that can keep as many as possible in the fold.

While I, in theory, support the new Province, I do wonder if TEC will allows other parishes and dioceses to leave and join the new province.

If I could have my way in this situation, first I would have everyone repent of their harness of heart and return to the orthodox Anglican faith and practice.  Barring that, what I would like to see is:
1.  Two provinces in North America where both are recognized by the ABC.
2.  The ability for parishes and dioceses to move between the provinces (within a reasonable limitation - say movement only allowed every 5 years).
3.  Allow clergy to move between provinces without problems
4.  Parachurch organizations, such as the Church Pension Fund or Church Insurance Corporation or Church Publishing be allowed to serve clergy of both provinces.
5.  For those congregations with a close split, allow both to use the facilities.  Say Congregation A at 9:00 and Congregation B at 11:00. 

In all things, we should let charity rule our hearts and actions, rather than winning.  If we end up in court, as St. Paul points out, we both have already lost.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil, what you say makes sense, and I agree with it.  I will add that, sooner or later, ++Rowan Williams is going to have to wake up to the fact that he will have two provinces in the U.S., and Canadians will be part of the new one.  If he chooses not to do this, then the results will be on HIS head.  Whatever happens after that, he will forever be known to history as the Archbishop of Canterbury who lost the Anglican Communion on his watch.  Does he want that to happen?  Time will tell!

Once CCP dots its I’s and crosses its T’s to organize itself as a province, recognition by the GAFCON Primates is presumably a given.

Recognition by the ACC or the ABC seems much more problematic, but the GAFCON/FCA group pretty explicitly doesn’t care what the ACC or the ABC think.

That leaves the remaining Primates.  Despite +Duncan’s plea here, I suspect that they’re not going to get a majority of all the Primates’ to recognize the new province.  Which will mean that, so far as most of the provinces are concerned, the “rogue” province will be CCP and not TEC/ACoC.

At that point (if things work out the way I’m predicting) with some provinces in communion with CCP but not TEC/ACoC and other provinces in the reverse state, it will be a fairly dubious proposition to talk about “the” Anglican Communion.

I differ with Deacon Phil’s #1 most emphatically - because I don’t believe TEC should be recognized as a member of the AC until she repents and turns from her evil.  It is nothing but evil to deceive people by affirming homosexual identity and activity that God prohibits and desires to heal.

If TEC and the other ‘gay’ affirming churches, ACoC/CoE/UCC, etc., were the Good Samaritan and discovered the man wounded and beaten on the road to Jericho, they would say, ‘Love those wounds, guy!  They are soooo you!  You are right to show them to everyone.  Having a potluck at our church this week and we’d love to have you come…you can even help lead the worship.  Feel free.” and then saunters blindly and carelessly away, feeling just peachy and righteous and so good and loving.

But that is not love at all…it is really hate, negligence and blind spiritual stupidity.  It is the mark of a church and people who have never really known the truth, love and life or the power of God…never heard the true Gospel of repentance and redemption, never been regenerated into real Christianity.
They only know a political social imitation gospel.

This is a scandal and a travesty…and a tragedy for the wounded man and woman.

Ross, if that’s the way it works out, fine.  I don’t see that the AC has much relevance one way or the other.

Somebody,...please help me understand what reads like ecclsiological schizophrenia: two competing religions existing as separate (but no doubt equally acknowledged by the ABC) “provinces” in the Anglican “Communion,” not in communion with the Southern Cone?  Is that what we’re talking about?

“The new Anglican Province in North America has been slow in starting to move . . . but it is now in motion. And like a glacier, it will be almost impossible to stop”—-AnglicanFirst [#1]

True. And those of us frustrated about the pace of progress over the past five years should remember how orthodox leaders (from Bob Duncan, David Anderson, and Martyn Minns to Hugo Blankingship and Wicks Stephens) have shown themselves admirably competent and surefooted. Think of ECUSA floundering and flailing in the Virginia church property litigation. Think of BeerKat having to make hash of ECUSA’s canons in order to depose the orthodox. Think of how ECUSA is increasingly seen as an aggressor. Think of how GAFCon will shift power from Canterbury to the Global South.

We have some very wise, capable leaders, for whom we should be grateful.

My hope is that the moderate provinces will seek compromise and recognize both.  Thereby giving the new Province majority support for its existence.

Ross writes,

it will be a fairly dubious proposition to talk about “the” Anglican Communion.

Amen to that. The “communion” that ain’t. A communion should have all its members with each other pairwise. However, we have a non-transitive relationship: A is in communion with B, and B in communion with C, but A is not in communion with C.

The question becomes, does anyone want to stay in a Communion that is in communion with TEC…it institutionalizes their Unitarian agenda to let them remain unchastized…

As the new province becomes larger and financially more fit than TEC and ACofC, the ABC after Abp Wms will recognize it.  TEC and ACofC will ultimately go off into the sunset or will change their ways and join with the new province, which will be much larger and have much greater resources by then ... probably 20-30 years from now.  Many of us may not see it; but Moses never saw the promised land, either.

Caleb,  Can you show me a time when heresy did not exist in the Church? 
I advocate letting both TEC and CCP remain in communion with Canterbury until TEC either refuses to sign or violates the Covenant.  This way, we use the Gamaliel principle of letting God determine what propsers. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Oh Phil…absolutely I would agree with this process…the whole point is conciliar life…

The new province has almost certainly been designed and discussed in a way that will win approval from GAFCon. The question, as other commenters have noted, is how non-GAFCon provinces will respond. Some more specific questions:

—- Will Canterbury seek to discourage provinces from recognizing the new provinces?

—- Is Canterbury is seeking dissuade additional provinces from joining GAFCon?

—- Recognizing the new province, like joining GAFCon, will show some dissatisfaction with Canterbury’s leadership of the Anglican Communion. In the context of the communion’s internal politics, which of those two steps will be seen as the milder one?

An institution that loses the ‘essence’ of its unifying mission and is ‘permissive’ towards those who challenge and defy that ‘essence’ is inviting dissension that will lead to a fracturing loss of unity.

The institution in this case is the Anglican Communion as led by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Perhaps this is an unavoidable consequence of an ‘episcopal church’ being led by a senior bishop, appointed by a government foreign to most Anglicans, who has no episcopal authority in the Roman sense or elected synodic authority in the Eastern Orthodox sense.

What the post-colonial Anglican Communion has had is a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ sense of collegiality. 

Well, the secularly radical revisionists within the Anglican Communion have proven that they are not “gentlemen” and we are fast losing/have lost the unifying cohesion provided by a “gentleman’s agreement.”

These revisionists disdain the beliefs of the traditional/orthodox Anglicans insofar as those beliefs ‘get in the way’ of their radical revisionist agenda.

I just got a letter from Bp Duncan soliciting funds for the new province. One can contribute here: http://www.acn-us.org/contributions/ . It is easy. They take paypal!

18, I suppose that GAFCON and a new orthodox provence would be destabalizing in your eyes and that is a good thing.

Hopper (#18)
The Primates and Lambeth and the Windsor Report and the ACC have all been very clear that the “primary destablizing force in the Anglican Communion” is TEC.  The destablizing brought about by bishops having oversight outside of their geographical boundries is part of the destabilizing force of TEC’s decisions to ignore the rest of the communion and to do its own thing. 

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

If CCP succeeds, then the withering away of TEC will become even more certain, for TEC cannot touch the growth of the CCP and there will be nothing to stop parishes and dioceses from joining an American communion. If the ABC does not approve, this is of small consequence, since the ABC has already marginalized himself. Who can doubt the evidence? Gafcon’s recognition of the new American communion will simply give America international ties once more in an international common cause partnership. I suspect now that this shift and realignment cannot be stopped beccause there is so little to lose and so much to gain.

  What will my own TAC and ACA do here?  Nothing, I daresay. They seem to be lost in a little world of their own. But I will certainly suggest to the rest of the vestry that they seriously move to realign themselves with CCP and suggest to the Deacon that he find a new bishop. The ACA has become too Roman centered to be part of any Anglican communion.  Larry

“Were it not for American ultra-conservatives raising cane, the Global South would not be making the stand it is currently”

Hopper [#23]: I know you don’t intend the parallel, but your argument strikingly resembles what redneck politicians’ criticism of the Civil Rights Movement:

“But for them outside agitators, our Colored folk would still be content.”

Alas, the ‘emerging province’ will not have a presence (except on paper) in many, many dioceses across the US which have been long been taken over by the reappraisers.  Therefore, many of us need to leave, for the good of our souls, and find a local group of Christians with which to worship.  I ‘officially’ left last month, and the relief is enormous.

TEC will not ever “let parrishes go”. Never. If you have been expecting this, get over it.

bl

That is, TEC will not admit that parishes have left ....

Hopper [#31]: Not a very telling analogue, is it?

By contrast, my analogue in #24 (“But for them outside agitators, our Colored folk would still be content”) has parallels in the substance of your #23. You argued that North American conservatives have incited the Global South against ECUSA—-and that without their troublemaking, the Global South would not have mobilized against ECUSA.
_ _ _ _ _ _

I don’t know whether you aimed your deleted comment [#26] at me. If so, please note that I have never taken a personal shot at you, never treated you discourteously, and that I phrased #24 so as to avoid implying that you held racist views.

#23: Vive Le problem!  L