Various conservative Episcopalians have come together to form a new Anglican church body, one that will vie with the Episcopal Church in America as the true representative of this country in the world Anglican communion:

Conservative Anglican leaders unveiled on Wednesday the constitution and laws for a new organization intended to replace the Episcopal Church as the American arm of the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members worldwide.

The move is the most telling sign yet that the role of homosexual Christians has torn apart the first church to appoint an openly gay bishop.

Central to the new organization’s constitution is a declaration that the Bible is regarded as the “final authority and unchangeable standard.”

Dubbed the Common Cause Partnership, the leaders represent 100,000 Anglicans who believe the 2003 consecration of New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man in a long-term relationship, violated the authority of scripture.

The constitution comes in the wake of a conference held in Israel last June with leaders from more than one-half of the world’s 77 million Anglicans. At that conference, the leaders outlined their intentions to, in their view, reform, heal and revitalize the Anglican Communion by adhering to a more literal interpretation of the Bible.

“The public release of our draft constitution is an important concrete step toward the goal of a biblical, missionary and united Anglican Church in North America,” said Bishop Robert Duncan of Pittsburgh, moderator of Common Cause Partnership. Duncan was deposed by bishops in the Episcopal Church in September. . . .

The new denomination will include four Episcopal dioceses that recently voted to break away from the Episcopal church — Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Tex., Quincy, Ill., and San Joaquin, Calif.. However, not all the parishes and Episcopalians in those four dioceses agreed to leave the Episcopal Church.

It also includes dozens of breakaway parishes in the U.S. and Canada that voted to do the same. The new church also will absorb a handful of other splinter groups that left the Episcopal Church decades ago regarding issues such as the ordination of women or revisions to the Book of Common Prayer.

One of those, the Reformed Episcopal Church, left the worldwide Anglican Communion 130 years ago because Episcopalians in the U.S. reserved communion for those who were baptized. Those who left believed everyone was welcome to receive communion.

Like the Reformed Episcopal Church, canons for the new province prescribe the original 1662 Book of Common Prayer Book, though they do not impose sanctions on those who use a different prayer book. The constitution also gives parishes discretion on ordaining women.

Is that true of the Reformed Episcopal Church? I’ve known people in that denomination, which I thought had an interesting blend of Calvinism and sacramentalism. But how can it be sacramental if it has such a low view of both baptism and communion?

How conservative than the new Anglican church be if it communes the unbaptized and is open to the ordination of women? Surely opposition to homosexuality can’t be the basis of a church’s existence. Nor can agreement on a common liturgy. There needs to be agreement in theology. Doesn’t there?

Every cloud has a silver lining, including our economic woes. Consider these facts:

(1)Couples are staying together because they can’t afford to get a divorce.

(2) Gasoline prices, which we were so bent out of shape about a few months ago, are plummeting.

(3) Housing prices plummet, making homes more affordable for young families.

(4) Lower interest rates have sparked a surge in mortgage refinancing, which means more money in monthly budgets.

Can you think of any other good things to come out of this? (Answers may be either serious or whimsical.)

Reader and commenter Scylding has pointed out that political pandemonium is breaking out in his homeland of Canada, but those of us in the lower 48 states are not even noticing. He makes a good point, since what is happening up north is of great significance. Finally, the situation makes the Washington Post.

Canada, remember, has a parliamentary system, in which the elected representatives choose the Prime Minister, the country’s chief executive, similar to our President. The Prime Minister will be the head of the majority party; or, if no one party has the majority, which is likely since there are many parties unlike the USA’s limited choice of two, a coalition has to be put together. Well, the Conservatives are in power right now, with the Prime Minister being Stephen Harper, a quite able leader, according to my Canadian friends. This happened through a coalition. An election two months ago gave him even more delegates on his side. But now an attempt is being made–led by the separatist party that wants French-speaking Quebec to secede from the Union– to form a new coalition that would oust Harper. Changing governments in mid-stream like this, while common in, say, Italy, has not been done before in stability-loving Canada. (Scylding and other Canadians out there, correct me if I’m getting it wrong and fill in the blanks.)

In the midst of the USA’s presidential election, some people bewailed our two party system and said that a parliamentary system–which is supposed to ensure that the executive branch has the support of the legislative branch–would be better. Indeed, whenever nations embrace democracy these days they always set up a parliamentary system. They never copy the American Constitution and the political system that we have. Why is that? Is Canada’s current situation evidence of a flaw in the parliamentary system or that it is working well?