One of the goals of common cause is to create a “biblical united orthodox Anglicanism in north America.” Liberals consider common cause to be the epitome of conservative purple fever. I am wrong in asking if things like the following contribute to some people’s skepticism about common cause. From Cana’s Website:
CANA’s distinctives:
» indigenous ecclesiastical structure with representative leadership by CANA clergy and lay delegates
» healthcare, retirement, and insurance plans for clergy and congregational employees
» CANA’s episcopate, clergy, and laity reflect the diversity America with significant numbers of immigrants and minorities
» committed to modeling the possibility of respecting both integrities regarding the ordination of women within one ecclesial body
» an American financial structure with no requirements to provide financial support to its founding province
» established after TEC had rejected the Anglican Communion’s unanimous recommendations in “The Windsor Report”
» congregations retain all rights to their property
I understand that each member of common cause needs to maintain its own unique ethos, but it seems to me that an “indigenous ecclesiastical structure” is a slight dig at I don’t know AMIA, Uganda, & Kenya! I thought Common Cause was the new ecclesiastical structure. This seems to be saying to disaffected Episcopalians we are the best of the fragments. I am not sure what you win by being the best of a divided Anglicanism. This is not the revolution we signed up for. Am I reading too much into this?
