Not really Anglican
Jeffrey Weiss, the award-winning religion writer at The Dallas Morning News, throws the penalty flag on Bob Duncan, Jack Iker and company for their unauthorized use of the words Anglican, province and Episcopal:
Anglican provinces are defined by the Anglican Communion of which they are a part. Until now, a province could no more declare itself to exist than I could declare myself to be a doctor. There are rules, standards, approvals. None of which has this new whatever-it-is gone through.So what is it? Best I can see, it's a religious organization - a new American denomination - that seeks to be recognized as an Anglican province. News reports about how its leaders plan to seek that recognition are not specific. But until the Archbishop of Canterbury says it is, I can't see calling it "Anglican" without quotes.

Both Laurie Goodstein of the new York Times and Jeffrey Weiss are both correct in calling this conglomerate a "new denomination."
While they have Anglican roots, what they have become can no longer accurately be described as Anglican. Having repudiated Anglican polity and canon law, they are something other. Not evil, just other.
Their adoption of Anglican titles and offices and dress do not lend legitimacy. Comedy perhaps, but not legitimacy.
Phillip
Posted by Phillip Cato
|
December 4, 2008 8:59 PM
Laurie Goodstein of the new York Times says "Conservative leaders in North America say they expect to win approval for their new province from at least seven like-minded primates, who lead provinces primarily in Africa, Australia, Latin America and Asia." There will be no approval from Australia's primate who is not, as some suppose, the Archbishop of Sydney, but the Archbishop of Brisbane, the Most Revd Dr Phillip Aspinall.
(Brian, if you could leave your full name next time, we'd appreciate it. The editors.)
Posted by Brian
|
December 4, 2008 10:08 PM