ANiC Bishop Donald Harvey said he hopes that the draft of the new province’s constitution, which is scheduled to be made public in Chicago on Dec. 3, could be discussed at the primates’ meeting in Alexandria, Egypt in February.
Although the Common Cause Partnership only represents about 100,000 Anglicans (3,000 in Canada) ”“ those who have left the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopal Church in the U.S. largely over blessing same-sex unions and the ordination of an openly gay bishop ”“ ANiC leaders are confident that the support of conservative primates who represent about 40 million Anglicans in the Global South means that their proposal will have to be taken seriously. “I think the GAFCON [Global Anglican Future Conference] primates are the ones that would push for it for us. They have already indicated they would,” said Bishop Harvey. “It may take longer than we’re hoping simply because of procedural things, but if it goes before the primates and we get even a qualified sense [of acceptance], it would be progress,” he said.
Bishop Harvey warned of dire consequences for the global communion if the primates reject the idea of the new province in Egypt. “Then it goes to the GAFCON primates, and it could be anything after that point ¬”“ it really could,” he said. “I think it would be painful and cause decisions to be made that would be unfortunate for the communion as a whole. It would cause more fragmentation.”
Can someone clarify the logic here? 1) we declare we want a new province, 2) we want some progress at the Primates Meeting, 3) if we don’t get it, the Primates are to blame for 4) it devolves back to the GAFCON primates and ‘it could be anything after that point’. Much pain and fragmentation will ensue because…well, because we wanted something and might not get it so give it to us or there will be fragmentation? I confess this entire business seems just too bizarre.
I should add–maybe this is just a case of mis-quoting or excerpting. That can of course happen.
A couple of good, related posts from the great white north: [url=http://anglicansamizdat.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/chatting-with-j-i-packer/ ]Chatting with J.I. Packer[/url], and [url=http://www.anglicanessentials.ca/wordpress/index.php/2008/11/18/plans-to-create-a-conservative-province-disturbing-says-primate/ ]
Plans to create a conservative province ‘disturbing,’ says primate[/url].
The remarks of Bp Harvey do seem pretty chopped up.
The second link didn’t work. For [i]”Plans to create a conservative province ‘disturbing,’ says primate”[/i] go here:
http://tinyurl.com/62pzpv
Just one question I happened to think up:
What provisions will be in place with the new Province that will insure that it will not be co-opted by the liberal agenda the same way TEc has been? How will we keep it orthodox?
Peace
Jim Elliott <>< Florida
Professor Seitz,
The logic follows: 1) The Communion has failed to bring rogue provinces under discipline and it has failed to provide the orthodox with the protection they were promised. 2) The GAFCON Primates encouraged the establishment of a new Province, believing this was the only effective way forward. 3) The CCP has moved ahead with this plan. 4) The Primates meet in Alexandria in February and you can be sure this will be on the to-do list. 5) Hopefully the Primates will agree, because if they do not, this will only lead to greater alienation between Traditionalists such as those represented at GAFCON and the rest of the Communion.
This is not a threat; it is a clear-headed assessment of the tensions growing within the Communion. If the liberal authorities are placated yet again, this could be taken to mean that the orthodox have no home within the given structures at all. It could also be taken (by the Global South and other like-minded members) to mean that the Canterbury-centered Communion as a whole has abandoned orthodoxy. I hope that’s not the case, either way– it would be more than tragic. One can’t help feel, though, that the hierarchy has genuinely underestimated the depth conviction involved. It’s not just going to blow over.
Sorry, should have been “Dr Seitz.”