The Murky State of Anglican Ecclesiology

I was recently informed that the Anglican Church in North America has a new website, so I checked it out and it looks really good! No surprise there. While perusing the site I came across the page that has the dioceses on it, and I must say that as an outsider I find it very confusing. It lists each separate member diocese/jurisdiction as a separate diocese along with links to that diocese/jurisdiction's website... which, if you follow, tells you how to become a member of the AMiA, CANA, REC, etc. But wait a minute... I thought they were part of ACNA? And some are part of the Anglican communion, which are in communion with the Episcopal Church, which they left, and/or with the Church of England, that they are out of communion with, but now want to be in communion with them and be recognized as a new province of the Anglican communion... huh?

Their ecclesiology is almost as confusing as continuing Anglican ecclesiology. Remember FACA? This federation includes the REC and the AMiA, which are ACNA members, and also the ACA, which as part of the Traditional Anglican Communion is seeking corporate unity with Rome... huh? And while I can't speak for the other jurisdictions of FACA, my own jurisdiction is or was in communion with the Church of Nigeria (in communion with those who accept WO), the AMiA (does accept WO), and FiFNa, which was not even a church and didn't even have a bishop! I do not understand how a Church effects communion with a para-church organization.

I have to be honest - none of this makes any sense to me. It seems like almost every Anglican group out there is "kissing cousins" to some other group that they virulently disagree with on important theological issues! Now I think that I understand the sentiment behind all of this inconsistent goodwill... i.e. that we all want to be in communion, and we all love the Lord Jesus Christ, and that it takes a few years to iron out details (didn't the Arian controversy lasted from around 325 - 381). All that is a given, and to some degree there is nothing wrong with it. But by the same token a "Rodney King" theology that is built entirely on the premise of "why can't we all just get along" (which is what some of this smacks of) is not satisfying at all to those of us who wish to think about our faith! It is certainly not Catholic. Although I consider myself a pragmatist, maybe I am not pragmatic enough to think this normal or acceptable! But what is the alternative?