I am not surprised by the points of critique that Rowan Williams offers.  Nor do I find them—or him—disturbing, as I would expect nothing less than what he has said.  I like him [from what I know from a great great distance], and I usually enjoy reading his sermons and talks. 

In his critique, Rowan Williams states “A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” . . . and this is of course true. 

But why would the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration imagine or wish to “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” when they have just spent a week meeting about the fact that they do not believe that certain other leaders in the Communion actually share the same gospel?

Of course this will not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion”—just as the actions of TEC do not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion”.  I would put it to the Archbishop of Canterbury that this matter of the Primates Council not “passing the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” is a feature, not a flaw.

Rowan Williams goes on to ask “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?” 

But that’s an easy answer.  By what authority does the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club determine the seedings of the tennis players who enter The Championships?

The answer is rather clear.  By the authority of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club which manages The Championships.

Any organization—and the Jerusalem Declaration establishes the rudiments of an organization—has the authority to manage its affairs and establish a coherent order and discipline.  Of course . . . so does the Anglican Communion, another organization that has the authority to manage its affairs and establish a coherent order and discipline.  It will be interesting to see if either succeeds.

Finally, Rowan Williams asks “how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?”

The answer is . . . not at all, for the Anglican Communion as a whole. 

But then . . . that won’t be a change.  It is clear that there is no ability to maintain “effective discipline” in this “situation” in the Anglican Communion.  Nor is there anything on the horizon that is likely to maintain “effective discipline” in the future.

Since a group of Primates and bishops has recognized and acknowledged that inability for the Anglican Communion, they appear to be determined to carve out a place of sanity—a small green isle of order—within the Anglican Communion in which such discipline actually can be maintained. 

What the Jerusalem Declaration appears to be establishing is an organization that will keep “effective discipline” for itself, since the umbrella Anglican Communion is unable to.  As has been thoroughly proven over the past five years, those who authored the Jerusalem Declaration have no authority to maintain “effective discipline” for the Anglican Communion as a whole and as such, cannot pretend as if they do. 

But what they create and develop—there is authority and responsibility.