The Moderator of Common Cause, Robert Duncan, opined the following in an article in the Church of England Newspaper (reprinted on the Anglican Mainstream site):
"In fact, the anomaly of a new mainstream Province of the Anglican Church in North America overlapping two rogue provinces, The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, would prove far more stabilizing and manageable for the entire Communion than the present alternatives." (Bold type mine)
Nothing else in the article is new... "Nothing to see here, keep moving."
What was mostly new was the reference to "rogue provinces." I suppose he means by "rogue" something like a rogue state, "whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior." (That's from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.) If so the Moderator has a wonderfully convoluted sense of things.
His description of TEC and ACoC as "rogue provinces," is quite telling. It seems that the Moderator is to be numbered among those who believe that Provinces of the Anglican Communion share something in common with nation states, namely that they can be "in concert with international law or norms of international behavior," or alternately they can be rogue. No matter that international law and norms of international behavior are often sadly lacking in force as concerns states and nations, the parallel for such laws and norms in the Anglican Communion are almost non existent.
There is no question that a number of Provinces believe that what TEC and ACoC have done is outside the range of acceptable action for churches with which they are willing to be in fellowship, concert, or "full communion." What is in question is the Moderator's hubris in determining that TEC and ACoC are "rogue provinces." Perhaps he forgets that it is such a Province that determined that he was duly elected a bishop. Perhaps he believes that TEC was not rogue when it confirmed his election and gave him place in the House of Bishops, but is rogue now when it has withdrawn recognition of him as a bishop in this Church. No matter, patricide and matricide is all the rage.
At any event, no matter just why the Moderator decided that it is TEC and ACoC that are rogue and not, say the Primates of Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone and Rwanda, the conclusions are clear. The Moderator believes that TEC and ACoC are like mad elephants. How, in that circumstance can he claim that " the anomaly of a new mainstream Province of the Anglican Church in North America...would prove far more stabilizing and manageable for the entire Communion than the present alternatives."
Here's a really really bad idea: Let's put a new province with jurisdiction over all the territory covered by two provinces already in place, claim that the new province is the true and legitimate province and the other two are rogue and probably need to be shot, shut down, or at the very least shunned. How can he claim this would be far more stabilizing and manageable?
Here is a better idea: If people, bishops, clergy and people, do not wish to be part of the Episcopal Church, leave. When they have left, they can petition the Archbishop of Canterbury for recognition as a church in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England is in communion with churches not part of the Anglican Communion. Maybe that can happen, but don't hold your breath.
They can petition the Anglican Consultative Council to become recognized as a Province of the Anglican Communion. That will be an interesting conversation given that the realignment folk think the ACC is no longer of much value.
The realignment crowd do not think the business of recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury means much, and the ACC is viewed as a body on its way out. What the realignment crowd believes, with the Moderator as a major spokesperson, is that in this post colonial period everything will be determined by the muscle power that comes from numbers, combined with the inheritance of the very colonial powers that are maligned - you know, the 39 Articles and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
So the Moderator is proposing a dual provincial situation in North America: Dual in the US between the New Improved Anglican Province of North America (NIAPNA) and TEC, and in Canada between NIAPNA and the ACoC, with those dualities being in opposition to one another. How this can be an "improvement" on anything in the Anglican Communion is beyond me.
No one in the Anglican Communion should have any part in this. It is a non-solution to the reality of the breakdown in the fellowship that is the Anglican Communion.
The CCP may be recognized by some Provinces, the GAFCON Primates, as the exclusive franchise holder, as far as they are concerned, and that will be that. Other Provinces will continue to recognize TEC and ACoC. It will be hard for any Province to recognize both. But mostly it will not matter. There will be The Episcopal Church and one more of the more than 50 other bodies claiming Anglican identity. NIAPNA will be larger than most, having pulled in some of the 50 and it may grow. If it does, it does. Meanwhile TEC and ACoC can go about their work of being a reformed catholic church attempting to express the faith in ways that both include the core of the faith once delivered and the faith of saints now living.
The Moderator has proposed a non-solution that does not mend the net, restore the unity of the church or anything else.
As for rogue Provinces? Humbug.