Archbiship Nzimbi said, "Tragically, the Episcopal Church has refused to provide adequate care for the faithful who continue steadfastly in 'the faith once delivered to the saints.' "
This Faith is much broader than issues of sexuality, and TEC is doing a fine job of caring for the recipients of it. The misuse of this phrase to indicate one faction of the Church is getting on my
last nerve.
Nevertheless, I'm sure that those of us who know or know of Fr. Atwood wish him well.

The accusation of adequate oversight for conservative, reasserting congregations, is a persistent complaint that will not go away.

And it is simply not true. Whatever has been proposed has often been rejected out of hand, with little or no negotiation.

Archbishop Nzimbi (and Akinola for that matter) ignore the fact that when excercised by both parties in good faith, DEPO works.

To get an idea of what that "adequate" oversight was to look like for these folks, one need only look at the demands of the original CT6. They wanted not only seats and vote in the diocesan councils, but to direct their money where they chose , call Rectors and ordain candidates of their own choosing, pick their own bishops, all without input from or counsel with their diocesan bishop. Their demands would have allowed them to function as their own diocese-within-a-diocese while still holding on to the protections and privileges of being in an Episcopal Diocese.

The proposed Pastoral Council would have allowed these groups to completely drive around the structures of this church (and the laws of the several states) and yet still maintain the privileges of of being in this church.

These groups are angry because they demand what they cannot be reasonably given and what these primates on their own territory would not allow if the situation were reversed.

Andrew Gerns

It seems the story in today's Telegraph, (see "Breakaway?" one item down-blog) was overhyped. This is evidence of further splintering on the Anglican right, rather than a signficant new challenge to the Episcopal Church.

The "coordination" Archbishop Nzimbi speaks of is, I'd bet, an agreement among provinces allied with Atwood's Ekklesia Society, to raise their flags in the same place that Akinola of Nigeria and Kolini of Rwanda have already raised theirs. So, more ambitious primates fighting over the same small population. A recipe for self-destructive infighting. Or so it would seem to me.

Four consequences of this action: 1) It makes clear that almost nobody on the right thinks the Dar es Salaam communique is still viable;

2) It allows the Episcopal Church to point out the disingenuousness of Akinola and Nzimbi, both of whom moved to claim Episcopal parishes and property before the September 30 deadline for responding to the communique--a deadline that they, themselves, imposed.

3) It would seem to release the Episcopal Church from any responsibility to respond to the communique, as other provinces have already taken punitive actions against it.

4) It compromises, perhaps fatally, the credibility of the Primates Meeting as an "instrument of unity." The agreements reached at these meetings are advantageous to the Primates who sign them with their fingers crossed, and come back to haunt those who sign them in good faith.

Jim, I think your fourth point is the most important.

If the reports some of us have heard from Tanzania meeting are true, and the AMiA and CANA refused to work directly with each other as a single organization, then this action is just a further splintering.

And the Primates as a group have lost a significant chunk of their authority to act as instrument of unity - at least in terms of being a sign of what communion means.

It appears that being anti-gay was not enough to hold these groups together after all. The splintering continues along the Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Charismatic, Prayer Book and amount of allowable biblical scholarship lines. This is exactly what is happening on a micro-level with these groups in the Dioceses - break up over music, prayer books, etc.

I think it will be very interesting to see in which direction money flows for both the North American Anglican Coalition and CANA. My instinct tells me that Kenya and Nigeria won't be pouring funds into parishes in the United States.

This reversal of support doesn't speak well of these efforts. When ECUSA conducts mission work in other countries, they find ways to support, both financially and culturally, the people to whom they are reaching out.

Perhaps there is something the African Primates can learn from us.

I have been doing a little reading on the conservative sites, and in conservatives publications. The suggestion there is that this move is one of several that will eventually lead to the creation of a (probably unrecognized by Lambeth and the majority of the Communion) parallel province in North America. It assumes that the AMiA, CANA and this new group will join forces with some of the conservative elements still in the Episcopal Church to form a group that is large enough and has just enough international recognition to seem legitmate even if it isn't officially recognized.

I can imagine this, but only just. And I am not sure that all of the Episcopal conservatives will make this jump, partly because some don't want to live outside a Canterbury-centered Communion, and partly because some (such as pittsburgh) would face serious legal obstacles ot doing so without renouncing their property.

Well, I can't imagine them getting and working together. They are not united in what they're for--only in what they're against. Much like the Continuum... And the result will be the same.

And--like the old joke about the Continuum--these North American branches too seem to hold the doctrine of the episcopacy of all believers...

Whatever becomes of the idea of geographical jurisdictions? Now we have three non-Episcopal national jurisdictions in the US each headed by a different Anglican primate. Will we have adjacent churches lined up along streetcorners?
David Hoster

I'm wondering if this is simply "the third time is the charm"?

AMiA is not recognized by Canterbury, due to the irregularity of the consecrations. CANA is not recognized, due to the "missionary" status of Minns. Beyond that, CANA is facing some legal problems regarding some of their property.

The new ACK entity might simply be an attempt to correct these problems.

The Suffragan will be attached to the Cathedral, instead of the "missionary bishop" designation. This just might get Atwood an invitation to Lambeth.

To my knowledge, ACK is facing no expensive property disputes, which will avoid the noose CANA has voluntarily placed around their necks.

And, if this one doesn't work, I suspect we'll see another consecration, and another, and another...

Terry Martin