Common Cause Partnership to be a New North American Province of ...what?

GAFCON (the Global Anglican Future Conference) is calling for the Primates of GAFCON to recognize a new North American Province made up of the Common Cause Partnership federation. The CCP has a Moderator, Bishop Robert Duncan, and we might suppose he will be the Primatial figure for this new Province.

The question is, what is this new North American Province a province OF? It will not be a Province of the Anglican Communion. It will be a Province created by and accountable (one supposes) to the Primates Council of GAFCON (which will probably be renamed shortly to reflect an alternative world wide Anglican community).

What a mess.


  1. They could almost be a province of the World Wrestling Federation, with all the posturing and mugging for the cameras that's taken place. It's like a giant free-for-all no holds barred steel cage match, isn't it? Big Pete tags Little Pete and he's into the ring.

  2. Since Lambeth has no real purpose.
    Since the Instruments of Unity are easily manipulated.
    Since TEC doesn't want a Communion Covenant....
    ...what does it matter that Common Cause is moving on?
    As the Lord said, let the two grow up together and what will be consigned to the fire will become quickly apparent.
    I suggest that TEC's brilliant minds get to working hard on a plan of survival and stop obsessing about those that they don't care about anyway.
    So, let's start hearing about why all of you GC delegates, and movers and shapers haven't done a blessed thing towards the 2020 Vision. If you're going to criticize GAFCON then let's hear about what has been done to what you DID agree about.

    Any commenters on how you, your bishop, your diocese, and your parish have worked towards THAT approved General Convention goal?

    Why hasn't progress been made?
    Stop worrying about a parallel province and start worrying about why TEC ignores its own plans for growth.

  3. Mark, pull out all your prophet stops --how far do you think this will go? Do you think the ++ABC will buy it? --the ACC? I mean, to make a new province, doesn't everyone have to agree, not some just declare/demand it? And if so, can we also declare/demand a non-geographic (my God! talk about breaking Tradition) province that welcomes and celebrates all God's children and is not based in fundamentalism?


  4. perhaps they should be called extracommunion?

  5. Well, if this new reactionary entity wants to be non-geographic, then maybe we should be non-geographic too. How about some Episcopal missions in Sydney, Lagos, London, and Buenos Aires? I'm sure that 3 of those would be very fertile mission ground.

  6. counterlight:

    Episcopal missions in foreign countries? Go for it. It's very laughable to believe that people give a rip about the failed identity and message of a failed particle of the Anglican Communion.

  7. Counterlight says "How about some Episcopal missions in Sydney, Lagos, London, and Buenos Aires?"

    Sure - go for it!!!
    With TEC's record of attracting so many Americans (i.e. 0.27% of the population...and mostly people who remember Woodstock.....), you will surely get millions of people in Sydney and Lagos and LatAm....... or maybe not. Either way, go for it....stop being a parasite in the AC and stand up for your belefs without compromise like BO33 and accepting your bishops being sidelined from the Lambeth Conference like some leper....why do you accept this? To stay in a body with which you disagree on more than one important issue. So, go for it, Counterlight...you go plant some churches in the GS if you think you have an attractive message - don't let the US failure put you off

  8. Do remember that GC2009 will try to get rid of BO33 and Lind or someone else will become another unacceptable TEC bishop before the decade is out probably.....so, as to who is the AC or who is in the AC....don't count your chickens.

    GAFCON ain't leaving because they know the political, rights-based agenda of so many in TEC leadership positions will lead them to push for more and more....just as they did in 2003, not expecting any consequences.

    Here is some good reading on the substance of the issues:

  9. I'm always amused by the language of historical determinism that features so prominently in the "conservative" rhetorical toolkit. The inevitability of their victory is asserted so frequently that the underlying confidence seems a trifle . . . er . . . forced.

    Of course, the last organization I know of to assert historical determinism and to speak so confidently of their eventual domination was the Communist International.

    How is international communism doing these days? Anybody heard?

  10. Malcolm says "How is international communism doing these days? "

    Thought they were running TEC....

  11. Malcolm, one of them referred, in another thread on this very site, to "the ashcan of history."

    I immediately thought of the old Bolsheviks when I read that. Nice to know that someone else has noticed it, too.

  12. Curious, isn't it, how a serial slanderer lacks the courage to use an actual name.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.