I am I the only one that thinks it odd that they don’t say what the 28 dioceses are? Is this too much to ask? Is it some great state secret?

Purple shirts for everyone!

I do not think that 28 is a bad number with 700 parishes.  That is about one for every two states and/or provinces.  Of course I fear that many will be affinity based rather than geographic.  Hopefully those will fade over time.

Hold yer horses, Greeley!  The list of the new dioceses, along with the constitution and canons, will soon be available at http://www.united-anglicans.org, according to VOL.

Re 3, only a handful of new purple shirts will be up for grabs, I’m afraid. The majority of these dioceses already exist, and they have their bishops in place already. (ex., The four former TEC dioceses, the REC dioceses, the CANA and AMIA structures, the Ugandan and Kenyan already under “missionary” bishops, etc.)  Only a handful of “dioceses in formation” are going to need new miters in the near future.

I thought I would save some time on this thread by putting in predictable responses in advance:

1. This is a small group of malcontents who will not amount to anything.  Ignore them.
2.  This is the spearhead of a giant fundamentalist conspiracy that must be stopped at all counts.
3. This group will never amount to anything because they include women priests.
4. This group will never amount to anything because most of their constituent members forbid women priests.
5. This group will fail unless they embrace the 1662 BCP, and nothing later.
6. This group will fail because they are dinosaurs.  Notice that they seem stuck on the 1662 BCP.
7.  These people are not real Anglicans because they are not recognized by the Archbishop of Canterbury.
8. These people are nothing but puppets of African bishops, who are striving to increase their own power.
9. This is border crossing.  That’s not Anglican, and it violates the Windsor process.
10.  This group is not genuinely Anglican.  They are really just a bunch of Calvinist Protestants and Pentecostals.
11.  This group is not sufficiently Reformed.  Apparently they are including people who embrace Romish errors.
12. They are just out to steal property that was given by loyal Episcopalians to be preserved in TEC forever.  They should just leave the property behind.
13.  These people are not really Anglican.  They are meeting in storefronts and gymnasiums rather than stone Gothic churches and cathedrals.

I imagine that covers most of the predictable responses.  I’m certain there will be more.  Logical consistency is not a requirement.

RE: “1. This is a small group of malcontents who will not amount to anything.  Ignore them.
2.  This is the spearhead of a giant fundamentalist conspiracy that must be stopped at all counts.”

Simply priceless.

Here are a few more.

14) These people are not real Anglicans because they are still connected to the apostate Primates of the Anglican Communion.

15) Women clergy have been sold down the river because some of the dioceses are male clergy only.  We knew that women would not be allowed to be clergy in the ACNA and that the patriarchal men would betray them.  Come back to inclusive TECUSA!

16) The new province is apostate because some of its dioceses allow women clergy, even while others do not.  They must deal with this issue or it will tear them apart.  Even if it appears as if they have dealt with the issue by their inserting into their C&Cs;complete freedom on all sides either to leave or to stay, either to have women clergy or not, and even though right now everybody seems okay and the provincial alignments are entirely voluntary, it is still tearing them apart, just like it has Nigeria and Uganda.  Come back to the real orthodox Continuers, also the real Anglicans!

This group will fail because they use their salad folks with their entree…

Re 5 - one would think that now would be a good time for horse trading among the Uganda and Missionary crowd based upon geography (perhaps that will come later).  Even CANA is clustered pretty tightly geographically.  Only REC and AMiA would seem to have any real national breath coupled with a reason to stay intact.

Dr. Witt,

LOL.  I agree with Sarah.  This is priceless.  Just delightfully funny.

But surely, the list could go on and on.  Let me try my hand at adding a few more predictable TEC reactions (for to call them “responses” may be too polite a word for the knee-jerk reactions we can expect from our foes).

Predictable Automatic Reflex Reactions from TEC:
#14 (or 17, if you include Sarah’s proposals).  This purported new province will fail because it’s driven by fear of people who are different, especially the homophobic fear of gay people.
#15.  This alliance will fail because this motley mix of people is too diverse to hang together.

16.  This experiment in starting a whole new province will fail because it’s a complete break with established Anglican tradition in how to launch a new province.
17.  This “province” will fail because it’s so rigidly traditionalist and so wedded to archaic traditions that are long outdated.

18.  The ACNA will fail because it ignores the different social contexts in the US and Canada.  In their desperation to reach critical mass, these naive sectarians ignore the national border between the two countries, overlooking the fact that most Candaians don’t want anything to do with America.  Such international diversity can’t be bridged within one province.  That’s why almost all the 39 provinces of the AC are national churches.
19.  The ACNA will fail because it doesn’t have a diverse enough base to last.

20.  This attempt at creating a conservative province will surely fail because it’s simply way too small.  It just doesn’t have enough people or financial resources to get off the ground.
21.  The fact that the ACNA claims 100,000 adherents in about 700 congregations is a greatly inflated, unverified claim.  If it were actually true, then the ACNA would instantly become a mid-size province in the AC, larger than over a dozen of the smaller provinces like Korea, Japan, Burma, Scotland, Wales, etc.

22.  And even if those exaggerated numbers are later proven to be half correct, these people won’t be true Anglicans, for by definition there can only be Anglican province in any given geographical area, the one that Canterbury recognizes.
23.  The fact that there are already parallel, overlapping Anglican jurisdictions in Europe and the Philippines is irrelevant, for they aren’t based on rival theologies, but on ethnic or cultural differences.

24.  The ACNA will inevitably fail over the longhaul because it won’t allow women bishops.  This lack of inclusivity will kill them.
15.  The ACNA will inevitably fail because they have aligned themselves with ignorant, homophobic African bishops, and educated Anglos can’t tolerate that longterm.

Yes, the list could go on and on, but it would amount to wearisome variations on an all too familiar theme.  And yes, Dr. Witt is absolutely right that logical consistency has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

David Handy+

We will certainly be getting a list of the dioceses posted, hopefully sooner rather than later.  Most of the dioceses are pre-existing (i.e., the dioceses of the Reformed Episcopal Church) and will be served by their current bishops.  There are several that are entirely new.

#10 writes, “This alliance will fail because this motley mix of people is too diverse to hang together.”
Hang together? Perhaps the 815 leadership and the radical bishops will hang together. Or, is there honor among thieves?

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see which of these predictions might actually see the light of day?  Just thought I’d ask.