As a reminder, such a province must be recognized by the Primates Meeting in order to be a member of the Anglican Communion. Previously, however, Anglican provinces haven undergone “development” by the Anglican Consultative Council prior to the ACC recommending their membership in the Anglican Communion to the Primates.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Drell's Descants 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF UNITY HAS BEEN WEAKENED BY THEIR INEFFECTIVENESS TO DEAL WITH THE PRESENT CRISIS IN THE COMMUNION.A NEW PROVINCE FOR NORTH AMERICA WILL BECOME A REALITY IN ’09 WITH OR WITHOUT THE ACC’S RECOGNITION OF ITS ‘DEVELOPEMENT’, OR THE +++ABC’S APPROVAL. IT IS WHAT IT IS.
The GS Primates, the GAFCon Primates Council and the CCP has step by step accomplished everything they said they would do. We have seen statements predicting action before the end of ’08 or early in ’09.
The CCP site, http://www.united-anglicans.org/ notes a meeting in early December in their time-line. This leaves enough time for the GAFCon Primates Council to respond and present the new North American Province to the Primates that will be meeting in Egypt the end of January.
I believe this is likely to happen.
Bob†
. . .still ridin’ for the brand.
A fait acompli will be presented, but unlike TEC’s unilateral innovations, this Anglican Province will be the coordinated effort of various jurisdictions, many Primates and the Holy Spirit.
forgive me for my same old same old but…We must define “Anglican” first. I agree with the above commentators that a new province will be formed. I agree that it is a good thing. I don’t agree that it will be recognized by all the current provinces of the “Anglican Communion”…so more confusion. It all depends on the definition you use for Anglican….
It has been my understanding that the Primates’ Meeting can only ratify the inclusion of a new province after a majority vote of the Anglican Consultative Council recommending such, according to the ACC Constitution.
Are we missing something here?
John Robert asked “Are we missing something here?”
One thing missing is an explanation of how the presentation of take-it-or-leave-it “fait accompli” by those who believe that God is solely on “their side” is any different from the worst elements of fundamentalism…
Well, John Delmore, perhaps such explanation will be forthcoming when “an explanation of how the presentation of take-it-or-leave-it “fait accompli” by those who believe that” it’s OK to throw out 2000 years of faithful, orthodox, Scripturally-grounded belief and practice by “Facts-on-the-ground” presented by revisionist clergy and bishops is made first. As for whose side God is on, read His answer when Joshua asked Him that question in Joshua 5: 13-15.
I note that in Bishop Iker’s interview by Greg Griffith, he said “It would be put before the Anglican Consultative Council, I suppose, at their meeting in May 2009… we’ll see what happens then.” I suspect that is if it is approved by the Primates in January. Should be interesting.
And then ECUSA and the Canadian Church will do one of two things:
1) claim that their governing bodies must approve it
or
2) ignore what the Primates and ACC do
I suspect it’ll be a combination of 1 and 2.
A new Anglican Province in North America surely would’t bring more confusion that the confusion that presently reigns among Episcopalians now.
I am now free to tell you what I’ve known since it was announced at the end of Oct, at the Anglican Clergy & Spouses Conference that the presentation of the draft Constitution and Canons and their signing would be December 3rd at 7.30 in Wheaton IL.
http://www.united-anglicans.org/stream/2008/11/draft-constitution.html
It will follow a reception at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College at 2PM and occur at the Evangelical Free Church.
Orbitz has a great car+hotel package from Alamo for $82 a night that I’ve secured.
Bob+
In order to recognize a new province … doesn’t the ACC requires a 2/3 approval?
I am amused at the thought that these very smart people haven’t thoroughly examined and prepared for the approval of their new Province. It goes without saying that they have, and that a majority of the primates will vote for approval, and in January. Oh, and remember, their votes are weighted by the number of people they have in their provinces. Thus, Schori’s Itty Bitty See is massively out numbered by ++Peter, ++Luke and the rest of the Primates who are ramrodding this New Anglican Reformation.
You may hate what they are doing, but you gotta admit stupid they’re not.
I note that the TEO diocese of Central New York has, in its convention, voted for the ordination of non-celebate homosexuals. Other TEO Dioceses have come out with similar in your face absolute contraventions of the will of the various Primatical demands, i.e. Tanzania and the like. I think it means these TEO familias and their consiglieri know they are beaten and are letting us know they don’t care. MCJ and Stand Firm have similar examples. One bemused bishop basically said he knew they were beaten, and that he was anticipating making up their losses in attendance with a new flood of LBGT adherents and admirers.
You can’t make this stuff up.
See you in Wheaton.
Smart is certainly not the first word that comes to mind when thinking of the men behind the new province … and frankly I don’t think they’ve thought it through. It’s a power play for control of the Anglican Communion … pure and simple.
As for weighting of votes … when it comes to the ACC — the approval of which is required for entry of any new “province” — the Episcopal Church and Nigeria are equally weighted.
No … smart is not the word. Just consider Iker’s affidavit given at the time Holy Apostles attempted to leave the Diocese of Fort Worth. Iker used Canon 6, Sect. 4 … indicating that the property of the parish is held in trust for the national church. Or … consider Quincy’s actions at the time its Parish of St. James attempted to leave for more conservative Anglican grounds. Quincy resorted to the same canon & section … and even used the abandonment of communion clause against the rector. And mind you, it’s the same abandonment clause that brought forth such vehement objection from “reasserting” conservatives when used against Duncan for exactly the same reason.
Interesting how the interpretations of Ft. Worth and Quincy have changed 180 degrees in a few short years. Of course their previous interpretations can’t really be ignored — especially that one containing Iker’s signature as Bishop of Fort Worth — and certainly won’t be by attorneys for the Episcopal Church.
No … smart is NOT the word.
Ted, perhaps you can let us know the name of the “bemused” Episcopal Church bishop who made that comment. If such a comment was made … he should be chastised — by his fellow Episcopalians — for being so callous. Of course, the comment is more likely “legend” than truth … or at best a comment significantly altered (so many of late seem to be) to suit the tastes of our more ardent and angry conservative reasserters.
Of course, anyone resorting to the use of TEO — rather than TEC as it rightly is — is likely to be among the more ardent and angry conservative reasserters.
As for signs of resignation … I’d say Ducan’s public reference to the ABofC as “Irrelevant” is a fairly obvious sign.
Ted, the “I’ll take my toys and go home” approach … the name calling … and the other similar bully tactics of those forming the new “province” are foreign to people of real character. It witnesses to a near complete lack of ethics … and not at all to Christ.
Hopper – Have you looked in a mirror lately? Your last paragraph actually defines TEC and your own post is an example of your own point. Except the group who took over TEC is the bully who came to the game, said you will play by MY rules and MY rules say your toys are MINE! How Christlike is that? And now you’re unhappy that some of the “kids” don’t want to have anything to do with the bully?
You’re upset over someone calling TEC “TEO”? Wow. A group that breaks or reinterprets the rules when it suits them? A group that promises to honor the dignity of every human being unless they are conservative?
I don’t know what the future holds, but what TE”C” is doing is not a “game” I want to play. Oh, and keep the toys. Bullies don’t treat them with any more respect than they do the people. How much more childish is Schori saying under oath that TE”C” would rather sell a church – a santified, holy place of worship – as a saloon than let the people who built it have it. How Christian is that?
But Hopper, I’d watch out if I were you. Next week TEC may decide something about your beliefs needs to be weeded out. Where does it stop? Can’t tell. Bullies change the rules to suit themselves.
This is the GAFCON Primates Council:
The Most Rev Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria
The Most Rev Gregory Venables, Primate of The Southern Cone
The Most Rev Emmanuel Kolini, Primate of Rwanda
The Most Rev Valentino Mokiwa, Primate of Tanzania
The Most Rev Benjamin Nzmibi, Primate of Kenya
The Most Rev Henry Orombi, Primate of Uganda
See all y’all in Wheaton.
RE: “Ted, the “I’ll take my toys and go home” approach … the name calling … and the other similar bully tactics of those forming the new “province” are foreign to people of real character. It witnesses to a near complete lack of ethics … and not at all to Christ.”
Heh.
Since Hopper is a revisionist and doesn’t share the same gospel, foundational worldview, or values, his definitions of “real character” or “ethics” or “Christ” are radically opposed to mine.
What he deemds to be “ethical” or shows “good character” I would deem to be unethical and show poor character. And vice versa of course.
So thanks for the compliments, Hopper! ; > )
Sarah, as always, you are most welcome.
Under Some Recent Thoughts Within and Without the Diocese … I quote from a comment as follows: “It has been suggested that after the de facto establishment of a 39th province that perhaps the Primates representing the vast majority of Anglicans might do something such as bringing (+)+Duncan into the meeting with an ultimatum to +Cantuar. Seat him as a Primate and dismiss +Kate, or we leave, now.”
Lakeland Two … that sounds like bullying to me. And lets be honest … the Episcopal Church isn’t the one threating to take its toys and leave … it’s the GAFCON ultra-conservatives. Beyond outside intervention in our Church, the Episcopal Church is just fine where it is and has no real issue with other member provinces of the Anglican Communion. It’s the GAFCON bunch who seem to have a problem with the Episcopal Church … simply because the Episcopal Church refuses to do as the GAFCON leaders say and believe as the GAFCON leaders think. It’s Fundamentalist Christian Imperialism at its most authoritarian.
Sarah … you are most welcome … as always. Hugs.
Hopper – No, the group who took over TEC are the bullies. My comment was quite clear on that. How you can read anything other than that into it is beyond me. Nothing I wrote was bullying to you. Just suggesting that you be aware that others the group that took over TEC may decide there’s something that you value is not acceptable to them. After all, there’s no set standard – change is only a vote away.
There are many who are upset with TEC beyond our border. That you choose to ignore it is your choice. My path is not yours.
May God bless you and all of us with His wisdom.
Ugh – Note to self: Proofread before hitting submit especially when in a rush.
I understand that Hopper was referring to the comment that he/she quoted.
The group in control of TEC set about capturing property, especially that of anyone not in agreement of said group’s path. No brainer.
In Joshua 24:15:
“But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”
I’ve gotta get a shirt that says ” You call me “fundamentalist” as if it’s a bad thing. ;-D
Forgive the long cut-n-paste. See the rest of the article at http://www.the-tidings.com/2004/0924/essays.htm
[begin excerpt]
Like all careful and insightful observers of the fundamentalist scene, Father Arnold took care to distinguish between fundamentalism and conservatism, with which it is often confused, to the detriment of conservatism.
Conservatism, he insisted, fulfills a necessary and constructive role in the church and in society alike. It is concerned with preserving a community’s historical heritage, especially in times of cultural change. It urges a cautious approach, as captured, for example, in the familiar saying: “Look before you leap.”
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is neither necessary nor constructive. Working out of an absolutist perspective, it sees the world as filled with evil forces conspiring against everything that it regards — with unquestioned certitude — as true and good.
Father Arnold identified five unhealthy characteristics of religious fundamentalism in general and of Catholic fundamentalism in particular.
First, it is marked by paranoia and self-righteousness. There is always some terrible enemy out there that has to be fought and ultimately destroyed.
Fundamentalism is marked, secondly, by fear and rage directed not only against the enemy outside the ranks but even more intensely against the enemy within, including bishops, priests, sisters and theologians.
Father Arnold called this “the most revealing and dangerous characteristic” of fundamentalists because it leads them to engage in divisive activities. They spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to purge people, to get them fired, to destroy their reputations and, therefore, their influence.
Fundamentalists are captivated, thirdly, by the “myth of the Golden Age.” They imagine that Catholicism in the decades just before Vatican II was in its pristine and ideal state, exactly as God intended it to be, without problems or deficiencies of any kind.
For the fundamentalist, fourthly, all truth is to be found in a single source. For the Muslim, it is the Koran. For the Jew, the Torah. For Protestants, the Bible. And for Catholics, the pronouncements of the pope and the Roman Curia.
Fifthly, religious fundamentalists tend to link themselves with right-wing political regimes and movements in the hope of advancing their own theocratic policies. Accordingly, Catholic fundamentalists are unenthusiastic about Catholic social teaching. They tend instead to emphasize a limited range of other issues as if they were primary.
[end excerpt]
Fundamentalism seems awfully close to the sin of hubris and denial of God’s ultimate power…
40 yrs ago, already a postulant, I sang in Chicago with the UTS Men’s Choir as the EUB’s voted to be swallowed by the MC whale.
The cancer of revisionism swallowed the PECUSA where I made my vows to God in the Dio. of Chicago in ’69.
Last night in Chicagoland, by the grace of God, great medical care and better living through chemistry, I sang every song to His glory and with tears in my eyes signed the Jerusalem Statement along with hundreds of brothers and sisters in Christ. We are the ACNA.
Thank you Lord Jesus for this new start to your old call. Use me wherever, whenever and however you will. Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven.
Your servant, Bob +
. . . still ridin’ for the brand, but no longer on a dead horse!