I say we have a province for every group with a gripe. Don't like the your neighboring diocese? Join the Anglican Communion and we see you only make nice with the people you pick and choose. I wonder if they'll give each member of the CCP their own province when the start picking on each other? (They've basically been unified in their disliking of TEC, now they won't have TEC to bring them together they can take a good long look at each other. Wonder if they'll like what they see?).

Wait until the Anglo-Catholic anti-women's ordination groupings break away....they will find something to disagree about.

"Wait until the Anglo-Catholic anti-women's ordination groupings break away"

The break between them and the Fundamentalists is the elephant in the living room, isn't it?

I still find it mildly remarkable that Minns wishes to embrace historic Anglican habits - big tent, diversities, dispersed global Anglican authorities, and all the hermeneutic-theological-ethic variety these familiar notions imply - just so long as he and his sort are clearly running the show to target all the favs like queer folks, women, and progressive citizens of probably many stripes and colors.

He is colonial when it comes to outsiders with whom he cannot bear to rub shoulders - especially at common prayer - though he is post-colonial when it comes to his new preachments about getting his authority from a variety of collegial, dispersed (and typical?) Anglican relationships and commitments.

Then he really gets colonial when he claims that a new separate province is a peace offering - as if the underlings and outsiders and other targeted natives who dare to think they have any innate rights or resources had not already been fooled so tragically. Ah, these faked new colonial authorities calling themselves post-colonial.

I do not think I can trust Minns as far as I could throw Truro church with both hands tied behind my back. But then, I am among the targeted outsiders who must be domesticated and conformed for their own good, if God has indeed called Truro to force me to choose between the folds of their conformity or utter outside oblivions (as they are determined to enforce).

Nothing yet to see here, alas, in terms of true disarmament and the laying down of all the familiar realignment weaponized doctrines. Truro+Minns=good. The image of the new separate conservative province is supposed to shine like a New Jerusalem, but the gates are not open and the joy is reserved for those who sit in assigned seats at the carefully vetted tables.

Everybody else=bad, godless, etc., etc., etc., etc. No wonder God loves Minns so very, very, very, very much. He's just top notch in his realignment, his separateness. New colonials in post-colonial vestments, then. All the rage, better than Ginch Gonch.

The New York Times has an article by Laurie Goodstein.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/04episcopal.html?hp

There are two excellent quotes:

Bishop Minns, a priest who led his large, historic church in Virginia out of the Episcopal Church two years ago and was subsequently ordained a bishop by the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, said: “One of the questions a number of the primates are asking is why do we still need to be operating under the rules of an English charity, which is what the Anglican Consultative Council does. Why is England still considered the center of the universe?”

BECAUSE this is the Anglican Communion, from the Church of England. Just as the Roman Catholic Church has Rome as its center of the universe.

James Naughton, canon for communications and advancement in the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, and a liberal who frequently blogs on Anglican affairs, said he doubted that a rival Anglican province could grow much larger.
“I think this organization does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians,” he said. “That’s not a market niche that is underserved.”

Indeed, not underserved in the U.S.A.

JB Chilton points out that they are setting up a new protestant denomination:

"Contrary to news reports that a new North American province pledging allegiance to the Anglican Communion is being created today, such is not the case. It is not possible to unilaterally declare yourself to be a province of the Anglican Communion. The AP's early report is more on target: a new group is forming its own denomination which it says represents true Anglican beliefs. If that denomination wishes to call itself a province that's a good example of the exercise of doublethink. You can't name yourself as a province of the Anglican Communion, and it drains the word of meaning for a body to call itself a province. In short, the usage can only be meant to confuse and manipulate."

"confuse and manipulate"

Words to remember about this new Angliklan Church.

In the spirit of the Duncanites, I have declared that my back yard is The One and Only Original and Unparalleled Domain of Outer Franistan and I am its Emperor, Seer, Revelator, and Prophet.

All must kneel before me and tremble at my brutal commands!

Hey, it's just as valid as what the former bishop and his pals did today.

" now they won't have TEC to bring them together"

Bob, whatever are you talking about? Even after they leave, "reasserters" seem unable to stop thinking about, talking about, or posting about TEC/PECUSA. Witness the rather creepy actions of some from SF, who claim to have shaken the Episcopal dust from their sandals but still hang around in cyberspace, - bitching, mostly, about us. They will never not have the Episcopal Church to bring them together.

This is a group delusion of an entity that is not an entity. A group of would-be Popes that will not long suffer the competition of their fellow travelers on this path.

I wonder if this is more about thwarted professional ambitions by clerics stalled on their way up the Episcopal ladder. Minns failed to reach the post of Bishop. I think they are, after the law suits are settled, going to take a deep dive into obscurity. Princes without kingdoms to follow them.

This is rich: According to one of the hyper-linked websites, the new province-in-waiting will allow women to be ordained as priests, but not consecrated as bishops. I wonder how that will sit with the folks who originally split from TEC, because they couldn't stand women priests. I also wonder how that will sit with all those women priests the dissenters lined up at the public display of unity against gay people a few years ago: "What do you mean no women bishops? We thought you only hated gay people!"
The power struggle as to who gets to be the primate of the province-in-waiting will be interesting. Minns isn't the only one with the ego to think "I'm the only person for the job." I wonder whether the new province-in-waiting will have canons stating that all property and goods belongs to the people who control the parish. Afterall, any other canon, such as a canon that the parish holds property for the province-in-waiting would be fun to defend at the same time they're arguing that TEC can't make a similar canon.
I suspect in the end the new province-in-waiting will be yet another breakaway organization among the many that are out there.

Andrew: "Indeed, not underserved in the U.S.A"
Or in Europe, Africa or Asia, surely?

Just read the Constitutions and the canons...should it not add the word Congregational to its title. Furthermore they obviously don't trust each other as the property is not owned by the province but by each congregation! That is the the property which has not been stolen from TEC.

Please note how Sydney could not sign up, as they do not uniformly administer communion in the element of wine...and neither does the Anglican Church of Nigeria and Rwanda.

Note how women can be priests and deacons, but not bishops.

Is there any re-affirmation of traditional Anglican polity on divorce and re-marriage...no..because they are litterd with re-maried divorcees ....even in the leadership..

The Provisional Constitution lists Forward in Faith, North America as a "founding entity". FiFNA is a group which encompasses and shelters a diverse membership, including the Traditional Anglican Church (TAC), a full, "affiliate", member of the organization, and "parishes of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC); Independent (Ind) Charismatic Episcopal Church (CEC); Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), and United Anglican Church (UAC)", which are listed as "associated" members. In short, a curious grab-bag of churches seems to be getting into the new "province" under the radar, hanging onto the coat-tails of FiFNA.

http://www.forwardinfaith.com/resources/parishes-na.html

Just noticed another thing..the clause on the 39 articles are even more literalistic and Protestant than GAFCON...strict interpretation.

If Samuel Seabury had given that definition..he would have been arrested as a Tory traitor to the young Republic.

So the Anglican Congregational Church of North America accepts the supremacy of the British Crown.

I do hope the Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA are dumping their Marian devotions, smashing up their tabernacles and renouncing their pretence to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

My guess is that on her next visit to the States Her Majesty the Queen will be attending morning worship with TEC.

"a curious grab-bag of churches seems to be getting into the new "province" under the radar, hanging onto the coat-tails of FiFNA."

you know, I've alwayas been amused at how all these Oh So Very Orthodox, or as Anglicans Online calls them "Not in the Communion", groups can't seem to get together and form one group. I mean, a lot of them left over OOW, yet they are still individual little groups, as though they each think their iopposition to OOW is more "orthodox" than that of others. While it IS possible I will not get to be so smug in future, I doubt it. Those whoare so very pure in their belief often are incapable of working with the "impurities" of others, that's how they get to be seperate in the first place. Wait till Benediction clashed with individual Communion Cups. Wait for the clash of Bibliolatry and Maryolatry.

Robert Ian Williams at 7:33 4 December
Thank you for that information. Regarding their congregational nature I guess even malcontents can have some integrity: "By golly, we stole it fair and square and we're keeping it to ourselves."
Although Congegational Anglicans might take some getting used to.

RIW "renouncing their pretence to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

Umm, I know you think I'm as validly ordained as a tin of baked beans, but please refrain from reminding me of that painful fact at every available opportunity as I play my silly ritualistic games.

"I do hope the Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA are dumping their Marian devotions, smashing up their tabernacles and renouncing their pretence to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."

Oh, they aren't required to.......yet. But honestly, how long do you think it'll be before the Consevo ACNA (oh so close to acne, no?) people start making this very demand? I mean, do these Anglo-Catholics really think their Consevo coreligionists are going to tolerate such Romish goings on? My God, if Sydney won't even allow devotions at the Cross on Good Friday, or a chasuble at any time, then what hope do they have? And they go on and on now about being forced to accept clergy they disagree with, claiming they are being oppressed by having to put up with someone a bit more liberal. Just what do they think will happen to them in a body dominated by Consevos? Talk about dancing in dreamland!

Not even Ford has picked up on my observation that the ACNA strict definition of the 39 articles would have landed Bishop Seabury in hot water with the US Government in 1787. Sensibly the Protestant Episcopal Church adapted them, and removed their subservience to the English crown.

Not so these would be "true" heirs of Seabury.

Just what do they think will happen to them in a body dominated by Consevos (Ford)

Asimov (Foundation) has Salvor Hardin tell the story of the horse and the man who unite to defeat the common enemy, the wolf.

The horse agrees to take a bridle and saddle to give the man speed. When the wolf is dead, the horse says to the man, 'now take this off me, our work is done and we can go our separate ways free.' The man replies, 'The hell I will. Giddy-up Dobbin' and applied the spurs.

Funnily enough, that was about the power of religion as well...

mynsterpreost,

But, in their case, they can, and will, take the saddle off by themselves. This little grouping of the pure will not last, because groupiongs of the pure never do. It's the joke of the guy trying to talk someone out of committing suicide off a bridge:

Are you a Christian?
Yes.
So am I, see we have something in common. Are you Protestant?
Yes.
See, something else we have in common. What kind of Protestant?
Baptist.
So am I!, See, another thing in common. Traditional Baptist or Reformed Baptist?
Reformed Baptist.
Great, something else in common. See, with all this in common with someone else, you are obviously not alone in the world. How could you kill yourself? Reformed Baptist reformation of 1845 or Reformed Baptist, reformation of 1871?
Reformation of 1871.
Die, heretic scum! and he pushed him off the bridge.

Just watch, it'll be as it has always been. One crowd will decide they, of all these selfdeclared judges of holiness, are the TRUE judges of holiness, and they will row out. Mark it down.