I am incredibly encouraged by this letter and the developments it outlines. It is my heartfelt desire that AMiA be fully included in ACNA, and I see no reason why the structures of ACNA cannot accommodate AMiA’s specific “DNA” to enrich the whole. Reconciliation and resolution of this matter in North America and with Rwanda will be of great importance as the GAFCON movement takes further steps in the next couple years.

I agree that the AMiA should be fully integrated into the ACNA, and for the reasons stated so well.

The AMiA will probably affiliate with a different overseas provence and then return to partner status with ACNA. It does not read like they are wanting to become a truly integrated part of ACNA like CANA. Structure is there to support the mission of the Church and not the other way around.

Why won’t they integrate fully into ACNA? I don’t understand.

#3—Keep in mind there are two seperate and distinct parts of AMiA right now, as the letter acknowleges.  There is the Apostles’ Network headed up by Bps. Glenn and Barnham, and the “Pawleys Island” group headed up by the other former AMiA bishops. BTW, this is interesting nominclature as it is not at all certain that All Saints is aligned with Murphy.  However the rest of the Apostles’ Network is very much part of Rwanda, and is not planning on going anywhere else. I think this meeting was about what is going to happen to Murphy after his recent highjinks.  In essence, AMiA is merely a 501(c)3 corporation, so it really irrelevant whoever holds the name. I have no insdide information of any kind, but I think it looks like the Apostles’ Network is already in process of becoming affilated under Bp. Duncan’s umbrella, though we will most certainly remain part of Rwanda.  I think, and my hope is, that having one body in North America will put huge pressure on Canterbury to recognise a new provencial structure in North America.

I join #4 in being bewildered at the hesitation to join ACNA. In fact, what really confuses me is why CANA and AMIA are around now. Wasn’t the argument that non-geographical (coverage from Africa) dioceses were a short term solution to get us to a unified province that was unified and strong enough that Canterbury could recognize? (please correct me if I have this wrong). Instead, we have CANA and its new Nigerian church dioceses starting up in the US and AMIA with churches that lack any geographical diocese in the US. All of this detracts from the end goal to be recognized by Canterbury. Does anyone think that Canterbury takes us seriously when we are not united in spirit and form? My cynical side tells me that the reason this is the case is that a bunch of clergy got the purple that they would not have gotten under TEC and are now unable to put down the miter and let ACNA lead. Watching CANA and AMIA makes me trust this view even more.

I am open to correction on my thoughts/views. Tell me where I am wrong.

If they are supposedly working towards the same goal as the ACNA, then why did they feel it necessary to separate themselves from us?  It just doesn’t make sense!  In unity there is strength, in divisiveness there is weakness.

Nos. 4, 6 & 7 above, in a word: EGO!  A most powerful and destructive force in human history.  No. 3 above, do you seriously think ANY Anglican province will want to affiliate with them now?  Don’t count on it.

#6- I don’t think division amongst Traditional Anglicans has much to do with the current ABoC not recognizing ACNA.  It’s not in his DNA to recognize an organization that fails to further the political causes he feels are justice issues. 

If you really want the attention of ++Rowan, then radically increase your carbon footprint or create a manifesto entitled “Give Capitalism a Chance”... then you’re most likely to get a response.