The Third Province, the Anglican Church in North America, and other plots and plans

These are edgy days in Anglican Land. The Common Cause Partnership (CCP) is moving towards an event on December 3rd that will initiate a process of forming a new church entity with the hopes that it will become a province of the Anglican Communion. George Conger spells out his read of the process that will follow in a Church of England Newspaper article posted on his blog. You can read it HERE.

The brief plan is this: The December 3rd event will present a draft Constitution for a new ecclesiastical entity which seems now to be called the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). This of course is to be distinguished from the Anglican Church in America and the Anglican Church of America, etc. Still there it is...a name other than the "Supposedly Anglican and improved GAFCON Province of North America," otherwise known as SAIGPNA, a name only a mother could love.

So the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) will set up a synodical structure, a constitution. That will prove the intentions of the various groups in CCP to get over their ego and territorial issues and form a new church, a proof required by the GAFCON leaders.

Next they will sign off on the Jerusalem Declaration of GAFCON, there by establishing that they "reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed." (Proposition 13) That means, of course, The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. We can assume that the Anglican Church in North America will not be in communion with The Episcopal Church by ACNA's own declaration and submission to the Jerusalem Declaration.

According to George Conger, once ratified the GAFCON Primates Council will receive it and the G Primates in turn will put in motion the process of getting this Church recognized as a "Third Province in North America."

This is the first time I have heard the CCP / GAFCON entity refered to as a Third Province. This seems to suggest that it would be proposed that it stand with the two (TEC and ACoC) already in place, all as part of the Anglican Communion.

The Third Province idea is roughly equivalent to the idea floated about that there be dual or overlapping jurisdictions in North America. That got shot down rather quickly when it was pointed out that the few cases where such overlapping jurisdictions occur there are historical and ecclesial reasons for that happening and more importantly full recognition of the legitimacy of the churches that overlap. The notion of there being two provinces, where one claims to be the true presence of Anglicanism and that the other is not, will not fly.

But the idea will be floated anyway, because it appears so reasonable. It is not.

The reason the CCP / GAFCON church is being formed is because the leadership of the CCP believe that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are dead or dying in their sin. ACNA is coming into existence to capture the flag, or as they used to say, to become the North American franchise of Anglicanism.

The notion that there might be three provinces in North America, all part of the Anglican Communion, is so absurd and dangerous that were we not all befuddled by the sad state of the Communion at this time we would laugh it out of court. The realignment crowd, however, would love to float the idea, for it seems generous. No talk here of take over, not talk of "better than," every suggestion that we can just get along.

But the planning becomes plot filled when we reach back in the workings of the CCP and the Anglican Communion Network and remember that the object of the exercise is to put in place a "biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America," and to clearly distinguish that from the condemned Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada.

If this is how things are to be argued out, then what are we to make of Proposition 13 of the Jerusalem Declaration? What sort of magic wand is going to make it possible for there to be three provinces in North America all part of the Anglican Communion when one of them, ACNA, believes the other two are not legitemate as carriers of Anglicanism, the faith once delivered of the Saints, etc?

This Third Province thing is just cobbling together another Trojan Horse to see who will be taken in by it.

The plan then seems to be that the GAFCON Primates will formally accept the new Church, meet with the Archbishop of Canterbury prior to the Primates Meeting in February and bring the matter to the Primates then. The assumption is that they can garner a the two-thirds commitment at the Primates meeting and move from there to have the matter brought to the Anglican Consultative Council in May, for "implementation."

Mr Conger reads the intent of Article 3 of the Constitution of the ACC through the lens of history and I have the sense he is right that in practice the Primates have initiated the discussion of including a new Province. There is no need even for the Primates to do so by majority decision. It is enough that the matter is on the table and brought to the ACC for consideration. But it appears that the proposal for a new province has usually come to the ACC with the assent of the Primates reasonably in hand. This will of course be more difficult in this situation.

If less than two thirds of the Primates were to indicate their assent prior to the matter being brought to the ACC, my sense is it would not pass at ACC (where only a majority seems to be needed) and then returned the Primates for their two-thirds assent. Thus it is vital to the CCP / GAFCON group that they come out of the Primates Meeting with the assent of something like two-thirds of the Primates. Otherwise ACC has no reason to believe such assent is to follow.

So the plan requires that between December 3rd and July 31st there be considerable political work done to get something like two-thirds of the Primates to come on board. Thus the talk about a Third Province in North America.

Meanwhile, it is also important in this scheme to make it appear that the Archbishop of Canterbury has little say in this process. Conger's says in the article, " Dr. Williams’ approval is not a prerequisite for creating a new Province for the Anglican Communion." That may be so, although his approval or disapproval will carry great weight - both in the political work-up to the Primates Meeting and in both the Primates Meeting and the ACC as well.

Furthermore, the matter of "assent" may have been practically dealt with in the order that Mr. Conger suggests, but there is no reason why the Archbishop of Canterbury, with some help from his legal advisors, might read the ACC Constitution the way I initially read it, that ACC can be the place of initial discussion and vote and following that the Primates are asked to give assent.

GAFCON and CCP leaders have been talking for some time about their sense that the Archbishop of Canterbury's office re the Anglican Communion is changing and that new leadership is needed. At the front end his part in the admission of a new Province needs to be played down, and later, if necessary, CCP and GAFCON leaders are ready to simply ignore the office of the ABC and for that matter the other instruments of unity.

If CCP / GAFCON bishops meet with the ABC and he does not look kindly on the Primates taking up the matter of a "Third Province," or any other scheme for admission of ACNA into the Anglican Communion, or if for some reason ACC does not admit ACNA to membership, GAFCON Primates seem ready to focus their energies elsewhere and at long last have their very own world wide Anglican Church.

Fine. But don't spit in the soup on the way out. And, oh, don't take the dishes.