"The thanksgiving reception for Christ Awakening will be held earlier in the day...."

He was asleep?

"The service will begin at 7:30 p.m at the Wheaton Evangelical Free Church, 520 E. Roosevelt Road. (How Roosevelt will be turning in his grave)The church seats 1200, and the event is open to the public on a first-come, first-served basis. Clergy are invited to vest in purple stoles (for penitence?) and should arrive early."
- A.C. Network -

This notice of the forthcoming inauguration of the much-touted schismatic 'province' of the 'Anglican Communion', tells it how it really is. The 1200 chairs should perhaps easily seat the number of people who will want to attend. Unless, of course, you include all the faux bishops that have been 'ordained' for the occasion in Kenya Unganda and Nigeria. That would multiply the numbers.

However, if the Abp. of Sydney is invited, don't expect him to wear any form of ecclesiastical dress, he is only comfortable in collar and tie.

We note the venue of this epochal event - The Wheaton Evangelical Free Church in Illinois. This seems a perfectly natural place to celebrate this alignment with the Southern Baptists. Will Mr David Virtue, I wonder, be giving the preachment? He has the right sort of tone, vitriolic temper and temperament that should fit in well with the cloud cuckoo land ethos.

One wonders how many copes and mitre-bearers will be disappointed with purple stole being the requirement. No doubt, though, there will be a form of 1662 'Supper of the Lord' - with Halleluias and various pop groups leading the worship with holy hands aloft. I, for one, am not lusting after an invitation.

All I can say is: "Kyrie Eleison".

"Separate but Equal"

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, s***s like a duck...it's definitely a duck and it ain't AFLAC! I.e. if you don't want to get burned, then don't go playing about in the kitchen.

I can sort of understand Baby Blue's response to the phrase "separate-but-equal" in the Reuters article. That phrase does indeed carry an emotional load from American civil rights struggles, with our experience that in practice "separate" is never truly "equal."

At the same time, the goal is a new province within the Anglican Communion. It would certainly be separate from either the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada. Further, there have been those talking about this new province as a "third province" in North America, coincident with the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada - and so, equal. Of course, for some (and I can't say where Baby Blue is herself on this, as I'm not a regular reader at her blog) the point is for this new province to supersede the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada - and so be "separate" but "superior."

I don't keep up with Baby Blue's writing much, but I clicked on the link to see what the incredibly offensive phrase was. If a student had handed in a paper with the phrase in any other context than a discussion related to Plessy v Ferguson or Brown v Board of Education, I would have advised that it was a loaded phrase open to misinterpretation. Given the horrible historical sense of most Americans, though, I wouldn't automatically assume that the student was intentionally misusing the phrase. Baby Blue not only assumes that the phrase was used with full knowledge of its meaning, but seems to be convinced that some sort of conspiracy was involved in its use.

Not only do I think she's mistaken, but I wonder who put her up to it? Surely this way of looking at things is so odd that she couldn't possibly have come up with it on her own...Who else is in on the plot to frame the entire North American Anglican experience in terms of conspiracies and cabals? ;-)

Methinks BB vacations at a time share on the Greek island of Paranoia. She has lots of right-minded company there!

How can the Anglican Communion recognise this province, when it's constituent parts are being sued in the courts of the US and Canada for their wrongful possesion of property and assets worth millions>

How can the Church of England recognise anew province which includes the Reformed Episcopal Churh ,which has 17 churches in England?

Babyblue and co have never done anything but "anglischism". They are tooled for only one sort of activity. The idea of a universe without conspiracies and behind the curtain skullduggery is foreign to them. There's never been a time when they reported good or neutral news that didn't sound sinister and strange.

Re Martyn Minns' contested statements: those of is in the Diocese of Virginia are well used to his habit of stating half-truths, hints, innuendoes [sp?] and outright lies as if they were truths from on high.

I hope the constituent members of the Anglican Communion and the ABC are not taken in.

Given the track record of the ABC and his willingness to entertain former Bp Dunkin', but his inability to invite a duly elected, consented to and consecrated bishop of New Hampshire to Lambeth, I am not sanguine.

Maybe I could get an audience w/the ABC if I just bought me a pointy hat and purple shirt from Almy's and declared myself the Orthodox Bishop of Rockingham County, Virginia.

Are REC orders even valid?

(Not that I think that validity of orders even matters to most of the ultracalvinists who make up most of the "new province.")

As for Baby Blue, there's no need to fetch Aunt Pittypat's smelling salts--bb's always on the edge of swooning over one issue or another. This latest one is a bit of reach, though, even for her.

To be fair the Anglican Communion News Service covered the REC/Nigerian/Minns Covenant back in November 2005.
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2005/11/17/ACNS4075

ACNS has an obligation to report press statements sent to them in the name of an Anglican Primate but that didn't stop The Anglican Communion Office adding the following -

"Editors Note:

The Reformed Episcopal Church and The Anglican Province of America are Churches that are not in Communion with the See of Canterbury. "

That being said the NEW ORDER moves on a pace and it is important to grasp how long and detailed the planning for this new Church has been.

Robert Ian Williams asks: "How can the Church of England recognize a new province which includes the Reformed Episcopal Church ,which has 17 churches in England?"

Not quite correct. There are two Free Church of England (also known as the Reformed Episcopal Church) in the UK. There has been a split over Freemasonry tendencies to return to that which was left behind in the mid 19th century. (The continuing FCE, holding the "faith once delivered to the saints" is known as the Evangelical Connexion of the Free Church of England - www.ec-fce.org.uk.) Neither of these is organically tied to the REC in the US and both are free to do as they wish, although the portion with Freemasons and higher tendencies is drifting backwards is closer to the RECUS and one of its bishops was an ecumenical officer under ABp Carey.

"convinced that some sort of conspiracy was involved in its use."

And how is this issue different from all other issues?

Ok let's give the reformed episcopal church in england a separate province, we're now up to 40(with the 38 plus the nextwork and now england).
Let's say the Moderates in North American want a new province and then the Anglo-Catholics in the CofE get their own separate from the evangelicals. Every little group who wants only like minded folks could have a province. What's next separate services?

bobinswpa: In England, there are separate services already, and have been for a long time: you won't find much Common Worship liturgy in churches at the extreme ends of the spectrum - it's likely either be Roman/ English Missal on the one extreme; or Informal Praise led by a bloke in a pullover on the other.

"you won't find much Common Worship liturgy in churches at the extreme ends of the spectrum"

Is there no middle of the road in England? No matter how important us ends think we are? Is not the majority of the Anglican Church neither one nor 't'other? Or is that some hopelessly romantic yearning for the Goode Olde Dayes?

Given that the justification for the new North American province seems to be the actions of the US Episcopal Church and the ACofCanada, I am wondering if this new province includes Mexico? If so, what did Mexico do to justify
this clear invasion of its territory? If Mexico is not included, does this mean it's now not part of North America?

Given that the GAFCON primates have, with no consultation with the people of this "province" created an episcopacy for it and are now
drawing a map (maybe even a new map) for its territory, can it do the same for, let's say the Province of Sydney, or Province of SEAsia etc.? They seem to still be operating on a geographic model just gerrymandering the model to fit their needs. Heaven help the primate of Tanzania if GAFCON decides his juridiction needs to be re-addressed

Mark:

Not a just a separate service but a separate province. We could have the CofE traditionalist province and the "Pullover Blokes" province.

We could have a province respresenting not just geographical areas but theological emphasis and liturgical practices ect...

"Anglican Church in North America (ACNA)"

IN fact, most teenagers suffer from something similar. Although bothersome to those overly concerned by appearance, it is generally harmless. It is not restricted to heterosexuals. None of the medications offer anything beyond topical and temporary relief. The malady does tend to self-remit, and is usually gone permanently when adulthood arrives.

Cal: Don't you mean "ZITS" i.e., Zealous Intrusive Troublesome Sacrilegious"?

Cal McMillan might have added that it is marked by angry and frequently purulent eruptions.

"The malady does tend to self-remit, and is usually gone permanently when adulthood arrives."

Cal's comment here does make one wonder whether full maturity will ever arrive for the sufferers from ACNA. The cause of this condition is something more than just sporadic infection. If it requires a degree of 'maturity' before remission, the problem may linger - longer than is good for it and for the wider community. Is there some sort of ACC-Laser treatment that could do the trick?

So far as BabyBs uproar goes, I do not quite know what upsets her so. Is there anybody among our USA (and mayb even Canadian?) lefts, middles, or rights who is still not yet clear that the traditionalists who so yearn to be separate truly regard themselves, not merely as equals, but as betters than the rest of us?

Surely there is no doubt among rightist believers involved in this putch towards a new conformed conservative province, no doubt at all, that queer folks are less than the straight conservatives who feel so obligated to preach at queer folks so judgingly from such conformed Anglican conevo heights.

The real, true, realigned conservative North American numbers will just have to be counted, and probably recounted again and again, as the realignment unfolds. Much of the higher numbers claim is supposedly due to the new province gathering in the formerly separated Anglican groups - most of which did not get recognized as communion members. Plus, of cours - the fav conevo habit of trending upwards as a way of demonstrating the loud claim that conevos are the inevitable waves of all possible believer futures.

Of course the meeting will be at Wheaton and environs, that is a big root of the movement entire. The conevo realignment is the only vigor that makes any sense at all to such believers. Not exactly news, then.

I do like to recall Prof Kirkpatrick's observation of the generational trends. North American younger folks simpy do not care, by and large, whether somebody is straight or gay as such. They habitually pay attention to what MLKing Jr liked to call, the content of human character. But of course, categorically, queer folks as the wedge issues that tells sheep from goats in the heavenly kingdom cannot by definition have any good content of character.

This new conevo province is just about as important as an intention to form a new, high profile Flat Earth Anglican Society. More power to them, but I will not support giving them voice and vote over everybody else, let alone grant their overweening permission to take global Anglicanism over, lock and stock and home invaded and thieved barrel.

They obviously feel they can flourish better within Anglicanism if they form a church of their own, and there does not seem to be any reason why Anglicanism cannot accept them as such. You may say that for these "rightist believers" "queer folks are less than the straight conservatives who feel so obligated to preach at queer folks so judgingly", but that is a criticism that one could possibly make of most Christians. They should be encouraged to continue wrestling with the issue and what we see as their slowness in understanding should be borne with patiently.

drdanfee suggested "The real, true, realigned conservative North American numbers will just have to be counted, and probably recounted again and again, as the realignment unfolds."

Maybe there will need to be a role call, to sift out the names that attempt to be counted, and probably recounted again and again, as the alignment unfolds.

Spirit of Vatican II.

Do you think that the re-Asserters really want to be 'welcomed back into the fold', as you suggest?
After all, their efforts to separate out from the 'Unclean' in the Communion is hardly a plea for tolerance for their point of view. The question here is: Could they co-exist with the rest of us? Or must they carry on with what they themselves have proposed. The ball is in their court.

"Could they co-exist with the rest of us?"

Those in the US have convinced themselves that access to the highest echelons of power, huge amounts of wealth, and the backing of major ultraconservative power brokers constitutes oppression, and that having 6 hours of conservative propaganda on television every night constitutes a "liberal media bias". They probably can't coexist with anyone who is different. They can't even, it appears, coexist with reality. Those outside the US have convinced themselves that Americans are trying to force them into sin, despite the fact that these Americans explicitly state they do not wish to force anyone to do things they do not feel called to do, and have given no indication this is in any way false. They will likely not be able to coexist with us either, again, having a seemingly tenuous grasp on reality. This is merely the overture. The real show will commence once they have purged the Church of all that they agree together is unholy and then fall to purging the Church of the things they do not agree are unholy. That's when the fun will start, and it remains to be seen how that will play out. But it will, it always does, that's how we got all the different Protestantisms, after all.

SoV II, you write: "They obviously feel they can flourish better within Anglicanism if they form a church of their own, and there does not seem to be any reason why Anglicanism cannot accept them as such."

Yet they have no desire for coexistence, only for serving as a Trojan Horse. See, e.g., http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/taking_over_the_church_of_engl.php

This is reason enough not to accept them, imo. Were it otherwise, perhaps we all might consider Nicaea's canons and the Tradition of the Church as to one-bishop-per-place as being localized as to space and time and perhaps to be construed flexibly in this day and age of the Internet, the automabile, and the jet plane, and perhaps live with a federation of partially overlapping jurisdictions as do Lutherans and Methodists.

But no, as the Chapman memo and their actions declare, any stage of coexistence by them with us would only aim to use "entryist" techniques to displace us and replace us.

Let us do them a favor and enable them to retain their purity without further associating with us and being polluted by us.

Thanks FordE, could not have said it better myself. The only replacement for our historic big tent is going to be this fractious doctrinal-confessional nit pickiniss - currently pushing hard most often globally from the right - hard right in many cases. Having palled around with all shades of lefties in college student services, I admit that nit picking to weigh just exactly who is most politically correct can be a preoccupation of small tent lefty groups, too - but so far Anglican lefties are not pushing to kick out righties in the ways that realignment righties are pushing to kick out everybody else.

Until they show by action that they are firmly infused with vitamins like common worship across our differences, combined with agreeing to disagree and reasonable pledging to modern best practices of scholarship or inquiry - I think we will continue to be targeted by conservative realignment. At least so it seems in USA, Canada, Brazil and globally. Powerful, rich funders in USA (primarily) wish it so, and money talks.

Spirit of Vatican II, have you ever read the Chapman Memo?

Just an FYI: "North America" is shorthand for the U.S. and Canada alone. It is more of a cultural designation than geographic. Mexico would be part of Latin America.

The term is used frequently in Canada, though I often have to explain it to Americans.

Spirit of Vatican II.

Pondering on your opinion that perhaps it would be a better course to accept the re-asserters as an alternative province within the Anglican Communion:

From your title, I would imagine that you might be a member of the Roman Catholic community, and therefore cognisant of the fact that, since the accession of Pope Benedict 16, the Roman Church has welcome the Tridentine re-Asserters back into the fold - apparently without consulting with the rank and file of the Church.

This return to a pre-Vatican II liturgical (and probably theological) outlook might fairly be considered to be a direct result of the ideas of those 'conservative' cardinals and bishops who were raised up by Pope John Paul and are now dominant in the Vatican counsels.

This is precisely why we in the Anglican Communion are concerned that 'conservative' leaders in our Church might be gearing up to a take-over of the Church - to a point where the emancipation of women and gays could be once again suppressed and returned to the 'closet'.

This is where re-absorbtion of the intentional schismatics would cause a great deal of trouble in the outreach of the Church to women and gays - and also set us back in the Gospel imperatives which most of us see as vitally important in our day and age.

I am old enough to remember the first schism(s) over the women priests and the 1979 Prayer Book.(I was in favor of the former and didn't like the latter too much.)Occassionly I go to a "traditional Anglican" church so I can experience Morning Prayer or Holy Communion using the 1928 BCP. The amazing thing is that 2 rectors from 2 different churches of different splinter groups told me that they don't respect people leaving the Episcopal Church over the gay issue. One told me (2 weeks ago) is that these people are being bigotted over the issue. They are more concerned either "heresy" or "Apostolic Succession" (with women bishops) that these latter-day leavers would allow in their "provinces".