So it’s not a new province as previously and publicly announced? And is this a CCP council meeting, is the public still invited? I feel like I am missing something - almost like some folks got ahead of the game or process. So know there waiting to consent to 14 primates to request the establishment of a new NA province?

Or was the CCP not in agreement on a new province due to some underlying theological issue?

I suspect the issue is making the province a legal entity, and providing such legal groundwork that can be tweaked, voted on, and then signed on to by the CC partners in a forum in which they are actually gathered to do so.  Then such a new entity would have to be “received” by the primates.  So maybe December 3 ceremony is like lighting the booster rockets on the shuttle.  Take off is imminent.

The Dec 3 ceremony will not launch a new province, CCP moderator Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh said, but will be an “an important concrete step toward the goal of a biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America.”
.....Once the CCP constitution is ratified, it will then be forwarded to the Gafcon primates’ council comprising Archbishops Peter Akinola of Nigeria, Henry Orombi of Uganda, Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya, Justice Akrofi of West Africa, Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda, Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone, and the group’s secretary, Archbishop Peter Jensen of Sydney.

[Archbishop Valentino Mokiwa of Tanzania is also a member of the Gafcon primates’ council and his name was inadvertently omitted from this list in the print edition.  GC]

The primates are expected to formally accept the CCP proposals and begin the process of creating a Third Province in North America for the Anglican Communion.

This is what I hoped for (and expected).  For one, it simply was not possible to “create a new Province” in December.  I believe that the GAFCON primates are wise and will not issue any ultimatums for “recognition” but will instead test the waters and get the best “buy in” they can from the other primates.

Personally, I think it extremely unlikely that this will be recognized by 2/3 of the primates as a new Anglican Province.  Much more likely will be a widespread acceptance of this group (CCP) as being an emergency pastoral response jurisdiction “in communion” with the vast majority of Anglican Provinces, with strong pressure on Rowan Williams to accept it as such. 

Acceptance of such will likely cause the “cross border interference” prong of the three-fold moratoria request to be redefined, as it would be illogical for the majority of primates to recognize a valid pastoral response jurisdiction on the one hand, and then criticize its raison d’etre on the other.  Rather, much to TEC’s chagrin, what I expect to see is that in the future, a two-fold moratoria request dealing exclusively with sexuality will be issued, along with a demand that all breakoff’s from TEC go via the new CCP jurisdiction and not be from a Communion Partners diocese. 

This will be one important step into dividing TEC up into “Anglican” jurisdictions and second-tier member jurisdictions.  The CCP jurisdiction and CP dioceses will fall into the former, while the rest of TEC will fall into the latter category.  The “Anglican” TEC dioceses (read CP dioceses) will receive Communion-wide protection (if only in words) from parishes departing to the CCP.  The second-tier TEC dioceses (non-CP dioceses) will no longer benefit from Communion-wide disapproval of CCP “intervention” in their geographical area.

And thinking this over, the indaba process just might work to the conservative advantage at the primates’ meeting, depending on how this new jurisdiction is played by GAFCON.  If they play it as a demand for recognition of a new Province, then the indaba process would clearly cut against it.  However, if GAFCON presents it as a needed relief jurisdiction from TEC persecution, then indaba could really play well this, as TEC has committed many egregious acts over the last little while.

As far as we are concerned, and regardless of what some may say about it, a new province is being created.  I can’t claim to speak for anyone else in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, but I am convinced that by December 31, 2009, our new province will be up and running.  It may not happen in December 2008, or even in May 2009, as some have suggested, but it will happen.  I may be overly optimistic, but that’s the way I see it.

jamesw (#34),

I agree with you.  This is a very positive developemnt.  We need to be “wise as serpents” as well as “innocent as doves,” and not rush things.  The new province will emerge in due time.

David Handy+

Father Handy, if we are being asked to wait just a bit longer for the oompteenth time, I cannot see how this is a good thing. And to hear 2 bishops of CCP speak of December 3rd being the launch of a “new province” and now +Duncan retracting that does not speak well of expectations. Sorry, but a lot of the new plan seems very much like the old plan’s time line - some day, some year, just be patient, just wait. I feel like the wind has been knocked out of me… Glad to extend my stay as a recovering Anglican if this report is accurate.