GAFCON Recognition of a North American Province by December?

What a lovely Christmas gift!

“...the new province will not replicate the traditional “territorial” organization of the TEC, nor will it have potentially “repressive” structures built into it. Instead it will most likely be organized by liturgical and cultural affinity.”

This is interesting! Liturgical & cultural affinity??????? Pray tell!

That would rock - count me in!

That sounds wonderful, but I fear that I hear the approaching footsteps of Miss van Pelt..and it sounds like she is carrying something…could it be a football?

Oh, Lucy, you _promise_ you won’t pull it away again? In that case, all right…

Please, please, ACI….will you quit fighting this?

Christ is awakening and reviving Anglicans world-wide: http://christawakeningworldwide.com/events.html

Matt,
We had it on (very) good authority this was coming in August.  Recognition will of course come, but we still live between the times (the now but not yet!).

I would welcome this, but we should also keep it in perspective.  The GAFCON bishops recognizing CCP as a province is NOT the same as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC recognizing them as such.  I hope it would increase the pressure on the ABC to do so, but I’m not holding my breath.

GA/FL, I didn’t know He was asleep. 
(Although at low times it can feel that way.)

Amen #5.

Connecticutian, does it really matter whether or not Rowan Cantuar recognizes the new province?  The fact that GAFCON primates will recognize its establishment and existence as being OF AND FOR FAITHFUL ANGLICANS should speak for itself.  They will be telling him that “If YOU won’t take the action necessary to create the new province, then WE will take it FOR you!  If you accept it, fine, and if you DON’T, well, that’s fine too!  Either way, we’re going to do it!” 

There is already historical precedence for two Anglican provinces existing at the same time and in the same geographical location:  The Church of England parishes and Episcopal parishes in Europe.

Thanks be to God!! I am not concerned with the ABC recognizing the Common Cause partnership as he is part of the problem not the solution. Once Gafcon reconizes us it will begin to usurp his authority as there will be those who will resist us for awhile longer. that is Ok as there are worse things to have happen as not being recognized by TEC cronies. As a matter of fact it would look good on one’s resume’.

And who cares about what the ACC thinks?

The TEC, the ABC, and the ACC have made themselves irrelevant to the Anglican future.  Let us all move forwards together to build the North American Anglican House built upon the Rock of the Historic Faith.

Orombi would make a good ABC.

Forget the ABC as he has forgotten us.

Stevenanderson, I’m sure you’re referring to ++Rowan Williams and not ++Benjamin Orombi, aren’t you?

All I can say is that I will be very interested in the details.  For example, is REC going to be part of this province, or a partner with the province.

Just an outsider’s question.  Is the CCP stable enough to be a separate province without outside assistance or are issues like W/O likely to lead to us hearing of factional in-fighting? [and please I am not interested in the ins and outs of W/O]

The way I read “organized on liturgical and cultural affinity” is that pro and anti-WO (or Anglo-Catholic) will be in separate sub-structures under the provincial umbrella.

monika

That’s the way I read it, too, monika.

#20 Thank you monika

Sheep Dog, please forgive my lack of grammatical precision…you know what I meant.  ;8->

I organized and attended the three Common Cause Partners-North Texas gatherings held to date, including this past Sunday.  (It was GREAT to have Bishop Kanu, Suffragan of CANA, Oklahoma City, and his beautiful family with us this time.)

#18 - it is anticipated that all the Common Cause Partners will be part of the new Province.

#19 - the bishops at the gathering indicated that the structures are being worked out, and much progress should be made on this when the lead bishops meet again the first week of December, but it is very likely that Forward in Faith will be a “diocese”, for lack of a better description.  Geographical jurisdictions by county are not anticipated.

By the way, Bp. Iker mentioned that the non-Lambeth-attending bishops are STILL waiting for their promised letter from ++Rowan.

#24 Thank you Connie Sandlin.

“By the way, Bp. Iker mentioned that the non-Lambeth-attending bishops are STILL waiting for their promised letter from ++Rowan”

Well, good gracious, what can have happened?  I am sure we were told they were being sent out.  There must be some mistake.  After all the ABC has been giving interviews on Dostoevsky, sending out invites to St John the Divine for evensong with you-know-who, making videos, writing sermons and trekking off to Lourdes.

Perhaps the Remington needs a new ribbon.

By the way, the reason why I have disclosed that I organized the events is to demonstrate that one layperson can make a difference - especially if she has a great bishop (+Iker) who enthusiastically supports her idea! 

Speaking of still waiting, we should be expecting Rowan Williams to announce the details of the new Pastoral Forum- due within the next week according to his concluding address at Lambeth.  Maybe he’s finalizing the details at Lourdes…

The new Province will be here as this story suggests regardless of what the ACI, Communion Partners or Rowan think. The GAFCON Primates have made it clear that Canterbury is not essential for Anglicanism. Those who need an “ancient See” to sleep at night will perhaps one day wake up to their fantasy that somehow being under Rowan and Kate make one “catholic.”

It’s a done deal. The fence on which to straddle is gone. Decision time.

#18 - it is anticipated that all the Common Cause Partners will be part of the new Province.

So is REC willing to give up its legal, financial and jurisdictional independence?  And how can Forward in Faith be a diocese of a New Province while it still includes parishes in TEC? 

It really sounds to me like putting the cart before the horse.  I will repeat the opinion that CCP should remain a partnership and the recent “Leavers” in Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, AMiA, and SC should unite as a missionary province that is a member of CCP, with REC and FACA staying independent for now and FiFNA, ACN and AAC remaining Inside/Outside networks instead of parts of New Province.

Andrew, it seems to me that FiFNA and ACN (AAC is pretty much a non-entity) are vehicles by which parishes in hostile dioceses could enter into the new province.  All the leavers have their affiliation in place.  To have an ACN, non-geographical, “diocese” in the new province would be a less messy way to go.  Just my thoughts.

AndrewA, are you in the REC? Are you attending an REC church?  My first thought is that instead of asking these questions of this list, I’d be calling a local REC priest or even better call Bishops Riches or Bp. Grote or Sutton and ask how they see the REC fitting in with CCP.

What I do know is that in two private conversations with Bp. Sutton and his attending all three CCP meetings in the Metroplex, the REC is committed to CCP.  One comment Bp. Ray made last Sunday night was that Bp. Riches has meetings every week with the main bishops in CCP. Sounds like they are committed to me.  Another sign of commitment is that three bishops from the REC were at Gafcon. That’s more than any other continuer and I guess the last example of commitment is the moving of almost the entire Diocese of the West and it’s two bishops from the APA to the REC. Do you think they would have done that if they thought the REC wasn’t committed to CCP? I can tell you since I have spoken with both bishops that they would not.

Do we know all the details of what CCP will look like after the Dec. meeting? Nope but then we can’t say for sure what TEC will look like six months from now either. Trust in God, have faith in the Bishops and pray for the future.

Connie it was a joy to sit with you and your husband last Sunday night as we listened to the Bishops speak. Your in our prayers with your move and I look forward to seeing you when your able to visit Texas again.

Thanks, Fr. Bob.  Even though we’re moving to Costa Rica a week from today, we’ll be praying for everyone back home and monitoring the development of the new Province.

The new province will not replicate the traditional “territorial” organization of the TEC, nor will it have potentially “repressive” structures built into it. Instead it will most likely be organized by liturgical and cultural affinity.

Someone help me out here… how is the placement of liturgy and culture any different from TEC? And don’t tell me about many of the wonderful orthodox people in CCP and their positions on scripture, theology, etc. I am afraid if this what drives our organization, I’ll take a pass. I want to see the College of Bishops as the leaders, God as paramount, His word supreme, and culture and liturgy secondary. Maybe I am over reacting, but I am just plain tired of having TEC and those holding on speak in such weak terms.

Fr Reed:  How can a parish be in two provinces?  Especially without TEC deposing the clergy for abandoment and suing for the property?  It would make about as much sense as Maine deciding it is in the US and in Canada.  Which Consitution and Canons will govern it?

I’m all for a New Province, but I want to to be a real province, and if a parish wants to stay in TEC, it must be content to be a “partner” with the New Province rather than a subordinate member.  They can’t serve two masters.

A reason why the “Inside-Outside” strategy will not work is that once the new Province is formed, all those remaining in TEC—whether happy revisionist campers or not—will be out of communion with the vast majority of the Communion. The hammer of judgement is going to come down on all inside TEC, regardless of “orthodoxy” or being “Windsor compliant.” So the straddlers will not be able to have it both ways.

Sorry folks, The Anglican Province of North America cannot be intertwined with churches that are also part of TEC, won’t work. As AndrewA & someone even wiser said ” one cannot serve 2 masters”. It would not be fair to the Anglican Province. It would not be fair to TEC. If one is leaving, leave. That does not mean we have to throw rocks at each other as we pass on the street but that we do have philisophical / theological differences. I hope in passing we can all have respect for each other.

JerryKramer—those who are revisionists in TEC couldn’t care less if certain Provinces don’t recognize them, as long as ALL the provinces, including TEC are still within the Anglican Communion.

If the Gafcon Provinces really really really needed to be separate from the revisionists in TEC—they’d have to go ahead and announce their formal departure from the institution known as the Anglican Communion.

Otherwise, it’s a bit like a state of the Union—Nebraska for instance—declaring that they are “out of communion” from South Carolina—but still remaining within the US. 

I think the better action by the Gafcon Provinces—and one which I see them doing—is to cut off *interaction* with those who are heretical.  No buying, no selling, no fellowshipping, no missionary sharing, etc, etc.

Thus, there is a growing, broadening, deepening divide between those who are traditional and those who are not.  We’re actually seeing this inside TEC as well.  People make their church attending, funding, travelling decisions based on the growing-ever-more-clearer divisions within TEC itself.

I think that will continue and grow.

I expect to see TEC become at least in its own view, it’s own communion even as it dwindles to utter irrelevancy. It is almost there now. The less conservatives and moderates remain, the more the impetus to change to constitution away from consituency within the Anglican Communion will be advanced.  Or perhaps the “Anglican Communion” will wholeheartedly become TEC and the conservatives will have a communion called something else.  Or all will splinter.  To imagine TEC remaining in communion with the conservatives is to make the word “communion” into something nearly meaningless.  I think we are there now.

While I am convinced we cannot share the same pulpit I cannot agree with banishing those we share a common life with as while I do not agree with TECon most everything, there are those in our local minstries ,including episcopal,that we can share time & talents with, especially with minstries that effect those in substantial need. Poverty knows no affiliation.

#40 - doesn’t that contradict your post in #37?

40-
I don’t think anyone is suggesting completely cutting off interactions.  But in the future, the interactions will have the character of ecumenical or interfaith relationships.  I’m sure, for instance, that when it comes to hurricane relief, Anglicans will work with Episcopalians, Muslims, Buddhists and for that matter, atheists, to provide shelter and food to those in need. 
  I think in the short run what we will see will be a strongly united Conservative wing of the Communion-Gafcon+Chew+Anis+Gomez and some others plus a North American province- the last of which probably not have Primate status from the point of view of +Canterbury- for the time being.  Canterbury will remain in full Communion with TEC for the next several years.  If the conservatives have sufficient impact on the development of the Covenant, ++RW will be left with a choice- continue to recognize TEC although they refuse to sign- recognize the new province that is willing to sign- or lower TEC’s status in the Communion while keeping the new province at arms length.
  If the conservatives do not have real input in the development of the Covenant (ie- are denied proportional representation in the decision)- then the Communion will split along theological lines.  Essentially, any Covenant that is not acceptable to FCA splits the Communion in half numerically.  Any Covenant not acceptable to ++Gomez, ++Chew, ++Anis, ++Deng Bul, etc, makes it more like a 30-liberal/70 conservative split.
  Given the makeup of the CDG- I am inclined to think that the resulting Covenant will be acceptable to the “Communion-conservative” group, of whom 3 have already recognized +Duncan as Bishop. And that they will work very hard to strengthen the Covenant to the point that it is adopted by FCA (although that group may continue to maintain an even stronger confession of faith). Which, should things indeed play out along those lines, inclines me to think that in the long run, ++RW (or whoever is ABoC 5-10 years from now) will accept the new province as in full Communion with the see of Canterbury before the next Lambeth Conference.

The reality is that the GAFCON Provinces are done caring what Rowan or TEC think. If TEC wants to pretend all is well and Rowan wants to cover it all up . . .  fine. But that really doesn’t matter any longer, the dye is cast.

The separation is from within. The new North American Province, as part of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, will simply go about being faithful and building the Kingdom. When Rowan or anyone else want to sign on to the Jerusalem declaration, then there will be something to talk about.

The reason for the hard separation is that those staying behind in TEC are choosing to be handcuffed to a corpse. The Fellowship doesn’t want to have any attachment to death and toxicity. The cancer is being cut out. If one wants to stay in TEC, that’s fine it’s a free country, but—again—you’ll be included in the judgement and consequences.

This could bring me back.

When recognition of a North American Province occurs, and I think this is now inevitable, I think it will occur with the the initial support of a large minority of provinces.  In June, barring a major miracle at GC2009, most of the rest and the ABC will accept it.  What I wonder about is what place TEC will have in the Communion. I think TEC will be neither fully in nor fully out for a long time to come.

Fr Ed McNeill, I agree with you.  TEC’s position within the Communion is quite likely to be ambiguous after the new province is up and running….as it surely will be.  I still have contacts in ECR, and they keep me well- informed.  Apparently, all is not well in all quarters.

Festivus,
  No it doesn’t. We cannot share the same pulpit but we can administer to the same people in need. The world outside our church walls are very indescriminate when it come to the less fortunate in need. They need our help whether we help episcopalian , baptist, methodist etc. But we do need to limit the influence brought into our pulpits & pews. I am not an Equal opprutunity employer when it comes to The reward in heaven.