I caught a comment from Texas Episcopal Deacon Phil Snyder, with whom I was blessed to have dinner when he passed through Sioux Falls awhile back. He observes how traditional Anglicans failed to unify in their dissent from the Episcopal Church's errors, and created an array of fiefdoms with no clear path to unity.
Responding to another person's suggestion that the array of dissenting groups is like the various Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in America, Phil replies,
"I don’t really have a dog in the Eastern Orthodox fight. Their overlapping jurisdictions are the result of immigration and not set policy. I wish they would organize an American Orthodox Church that encompasses all the EO communities and allows for local language/custom, but keeps the Tradition of one Bishop per area. But, as I said, I don’t have a dog in the fight and if I were to express that to some of my EO friends, they would kindly ask me to 'butt out' and to deal with my own issues within TEC and the Anglican Communion.
However, I do have a dog in the Anglican fight. There is nothing the ACNA [Anglican Church in North America, an umbrella organization for dissenting groups] constitution that references that the overlapping judicatories are anything but permanent. There is no plan that I am aware of to combine them all into one diocese per area with one bishop per area. A goal of this occurring 'some day' is not a plan. A plan has dates and milestones.
So, the EO do get a pass because that was a natural result of multiple church members immigrating to the US and taking their Churches and Customs with them. The opposite is true of ACNA. The US congregations and dioceses went looking for them [overseas Anglican Bishops] to come to the US to provide Episcopal Oversight as they [the dissenters] left TEC [The Episcopal Church]."
But TEC hardly gets a pass. Apart from the absurd departures from Christian consensus practiced by denominational insiders, there is their just plain vindictive hatred of those who disagree with them, as nicely documented in a two-part series by an outside observer:
"The Episcopal Church is not doing everything in its power to keep the property of departing parishes and dioceses simply to sell it off and pay the bills. Because if money was the primary motivation then the Episcopal Church is going about it all wrong. Millions spent each year on legal fees suing parishes and dioceses to keep said property? And refusing even to let those departing parishes to buy back the property? Indeed on one occasion selling the parish property to a Muslim group for one third what the Anglican parish would have paid?
The primary motivation has to be something like spite. Because it is costing the Episcopal Church millions of dollars each year to pursue this policy."
And then there are the ineffectuals like me, dissenting from the excesses but really doing nothing of any systemic impact. I don't for a moment see myself as some sane alternative to extremes.
A number of Episcopal/Anglican commenters, looking at this mess from their particular camps, will say something like, "Well, while I don't agree with that group's approach, I am sure there are sincere Christians in their ranks." I'm afraid that's about the best we can do for now - peek out of our blown up bunkers to see if there might be other survivors in the debris field.