It’s great to see many of the conservative bodies breaking away from ECUSA to find another Bishop to align under. But my question is: What is so wrong with the Continuing Anglican movement that these break-offs cannot seem to submit to a Continuing Bishop? Wasn’t it the continuing Anglicans that first recognized the error of the ECUSA church, back in the 60s and even as far back (concerning the REC) as the late 1800s? The Continuing churches such as the REC, APA, ACA, etc., already have bishops with apostolic succession, that are more than capable of being an Archbishop of a unified Anglican church in America.

It appears that we are beginning to align with Bishop Akinola, of Africa, which is great news. But what does this convey to others about the Continuing movement, as well as America as the Christian country that it was supposedly destined to be? Will the Continuing churches eventually dissolve and become absorbed by the Third World movement? And, will America itself be swallowed up by one of the Third World countries after we align with a Third World Bishop? Do not underestimate the influence of the Church!

God may indeed use one of the more liberal, future presidents like Clinton or McCain to continue to merge us with other countries through trade and military, and maybe even immigration. Meanwhile, we are aligning ourselves with a Bishop in another country.

Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying the direction we are headed is in some way disastrous. I’m just attempting to sort the confusion out. If the Continuing Anglican church needs a Bishop outside America, then that’s what she needs. And if America needs to be absorbed by another country to remain conservative, then that is what she needs. But if we are to remain an independent country, we will eventually need a Bishop that resides in our country. Otherwise, we will be looking at some of the same problems that the Anglican settlers had in the 1700s with the Church of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury.