The Archbishop of Canterbury: Wait Until Lambeth 2008

Hmmm, I’m reading this to say that at Lambeth 2008 the bishops can get on with the true work of the Church since the decisions will already have been made on the current problems.

That is what he is saying, and more.

This line could have come out of a TEC press release:
“I see the next Lambeth Conference ideally as the place where Bishops can really be re-equipped for their central task of enabling mission and in every sense educating the people of God and equipping them for their outreach. That’s how I can see it.”

I think the money quote here is right at the top-

I’m hoping and praying that we shall have no more actions that polarize the Communion between now and Lambeth 2008. This is the point I have already brought to the Canadian House of Bishops which we are trying to get across to the American House of Bishops

  As I read that (yes, I know I am being hopeful) what he is saying is that a rejection of the communique by the US HoB would be a further polarizing event. He is asking TEC to at play along (ie: abide by and endorse the communique) at least until Lambeth.

I agree with Matt’s interpretation of this as a betrayal of the Tanzania Communique - the ABC is saying he doesn’t want anyone to do anything until after Lambeth 2008, i.e., he doesn’t want any more Dioceses or parishes to leave TEC, and he doesn’t want any more primates coming to the U.S. to rescue the orthodox.
BTW, can someone explain to this dense ol’ boy exactly what he means by “living out of each other’s life”?

Who knows what depths of Rowanology are to be discerned from this interview reply, but as I would read it he is saying nothing new.  He is pressing both the Canadian and US HOB’s to do nothing further to distance themselves.  He seems to have given the Canadians pause for thought but the US HOB still have to provide a response by 30/9.  Nothing on this has changed despite all the thrashing around and appeal to other instruments of Communion.  The HOB response will either do what has been asked or distance TEC.  The ball is still in their Court.  Meanwhile the aggravating factor is the failure to address care of the orthodox.  It is as though TEC has been incapable of any response other than to freeze in the headlights.

Matt, if your read on this is correct (and I think it is), are you surprised?

Williams has stated publicly that he sees it as his mission to keep everybody ‘at the table’ and discussing things forever.  Because any decisive censure of TEC/ECUSA would consist, in part, of removing TEC/ECUSA from the table, and moving on to something other than perpetual discussion, this is a quiet declaration of alliance with TEC/ECUSA on Williams’ part.

Williams already showed his colours by telling the primates at Dar es Salaam that TEC/ECUSA’s noncompliance was satisfactory compliance.  In short, he is willing to support TEC/ECUSA and its agenda even at the cost of public, Orwellian distortion of the truth.  A vocal and influential minority of primates (perhaps consisting of Akinola and perhaps a very few others) called him on this misrepresentation, and required the negotiation of what became the Dar es Salaam Communique. 

As manifest in the public comments since, this latest Communique was deliberately (and, to secure unanimous consent, was necessarily) so vaguely-worded that apostate provinces very practiced in mouthing the Creeds while championing anti-Christian teaching and practice are able to argue that their continued apostasy and immorality are within the bounds of the Communique.

It was clear to me from the beginning—was it not to you?—that the absence of a self-executing deadline in the Communique meant that the latest line-in-the-sand of 30 September was not going to see action taken.  To accomplish that result, the Communique would have had to include some quite unusual language such as ‘TEC/ECUSA is hereby removed from the Communion effective 1 October unless by that date [insert appropriate concrete verifiable/falsifiable events here—e.g., Robinson shall have been defrocked, TEC’s/ECUSA’s canons amended . . .].’  Instead, the Communique was set up with silence on this point, which will be construed to require, first, an evaluation of the question of whether or not TEC/ECUSA has complied (which evaluation will, of course, need an all-primates’ meeting to perform—and which Williams will, if consistent, attempt to rig for an automatic acquittal, regardless of the facts); and, thereafter, a decision on action (likely to require another meeting).  With Lambeth a mere 11 months away, deferral of any or all of these meetings until Lambeth was a foregone conclusion.  Williams has already received proof that, though a few primates might be willing to break ranks in opposition to an outright endorsement of TEC’s/ECUSA’s ways, they are not willing to break ranks in response to a new deferrral to another meeting.

Understand that I deeply respect you, your intellect, and your resolve; I am grateful for your faithful reporting and hardworking commentary.  But—you DID see this coming, no?

The Archbishop is either out to lunch or a closet supporter of TEC’s agenda.  Either way, he needs to get out of they way and let the Primates run the show.  In fact, they seem to be doing a good job so far of shoving him aside and taking control.

Horseman: ‘BTW, can someone explain to this dense ol’ boy exactly what he means by “living out of each other’s life”?’
That’s what vampire couples do…

As I read that (yes, I know I am being hopeful) what he is saying is that a rejection of the communique by the US HoB would be a further polarizing event. He is asking TEC to at play along (ie: abide by and endorse the communique) at least until Lambeth.

Not the way I read it at all.  I read thusly, “Look the American bishops (both US and Canadian) have already told me where to stick it, and yes I’ be going to New Orleans to surrender to them, but that is no reason for any of you orthodox to go anywhere or do anything.  Really you just need to go along with us…I’m sorry - I mean them.  Really we…I mean they…mean no harm.”

Please folks you need to realize there is only one leader who can save the church and though his name has five letterds it is not Rowen.  Look, were still waiting for the AC to deal with TEC on Lambeth 1.10 and that was nine years ago.  2003 the AC tells +Frank that the VGR matter will tear the fabric of the Communion, +Frank said he understood and went right ahead.  The ABC’s responce - let’s issue a report and ask them to say “I’m sorry.”  TEC couldn’t even do that, although the ABC authored a report that says they tried awefully hard. so we waited ‘til DES and got the communique - +KJS agreede to it, went home with it, then she and her gang gave the Communion a flock of fingers and a big “up yours”.  Still he comes to take their terms in September.

Face it, ++Rowen will accept what crumbs they give him.  They will continue their lawsuits and trials, Rowen will ask for paitence and forbearence, and we will be down the river sold.

RSB

Wait until Lambeth 2008.  No, wait until the fat lady sings.  Or wait until the cows come home.

(By then all the sheep will be dead or safely grazing in other pastures.)

OK.  I’ve come to a definitive conclusion. 
+++++ Rowan (whatever) “no tiene cajones.”

The Archbishop is either out to lunch or a closet supporter of TEC’s agenda.  Either way, he needs to get out of they way and let the primates run the show.

Williams is not out to lunch.  Your second alternative is, therefore, the more accurate—except for the ‘closet’ part.
Williams is out of the closet as an active supporter of TEC’s ECUSA’s agenda, as set forth at length here:

http://www.anglicanspread.org/xm_client/client_documents/Williamsandscripture.pdf 

As you suggest, some of the other primates are realising both the possibility, and the increasing necessity, of ‘shoving [Williams] aside and taking control.’  We have come to Runnymede-like times in the Anglican Communion, and the real leadership is open to whichever primate(s) opt to act decisively.  Thus far, unfortunately, the US primates have done more in the way of decisive action than many of the Christian ones.

ama@reno writes

OK.  I’ve come to a definitive conclusion.
+++++ Rowan (whatever) “no tiene cajones.”

He ‘doesn’t have large boxes’?

Without the ‘cojones’ of the primates at Tanzania,  ECUSA would already have been appeased and welcomed back into the fold.  The communique that came out of Tanzania was certainly an unpleasant result that ++Rowan and his Kearonites certainly hoped would not have happened.  Stretching out the game has always been their strategy.

CAJONES = Spanglish.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cojones

Just Jonesin’ to keep up with the Joneses. 

Africanized Anglican & ama@reno,
If G. Bush and M. Albright can use the term, it’s time for another “cojones meeting” on October 1.

Dear Mother: “Andele pues…”
http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=230929

Do you suppose this ‘wobble, weave, ducking, pirouette or somersault”, might have something to do with today’s actions in Ft. Worth?

Surely something more than the passage of time brought on the insistant call for APO?

Just wondering????

Grannie Gloria

I have long maintained that the ABC is no friend of orthodox Anglcans. I have read several of his writings on the gay issues and they seem to be in perfect accord with ECUSA’s. If anyone is going to come to the rescue of Orthodox Anglicans in America it will be the GS Primates. Otherwise Orthodox Anglicans are going to be on their own and all we will see is further fracturing of the body of Christ that is the Anglican Communion. May God have mercy on us all.

Gut reation: I think if He asks us to wait one more time I am very tempted to suggest we burn him at the stake and move on with it!

A more moderated response not to follow until after a few martinis, followed by a week of penance and a month of prayer. 

Although… I am quite certain that even my moderated response will still include the idea of moving on without the ABC. 
Enough is Enough!

Is that 2008 or 2080?

I don’t think Williams is an orthodox Christian by any yardstick, but one positive thing was that he expressed a desire for the Communion to be more than an informal federation.  That is important.

It seems to me from everything he has said in the last year that he does not wish to impose his views on the Communion—that is not his role.  And thank goodness, because he is a classic reappraiser.  In many ways, we should be thankful for his forbearance.  He sees a conciliar model for the Communion and to let that model play itself out. 

Let the chips fall where they may.  That optimistic note being said, it seems hard for me to believe that Lambeth 08 will result in clear lines and discipline.  Lambeth is just not set up to be a jury trial, and it would be difficult for the conference to look all the TEC bishops in the face and say thanks for playing, you can go home now.  Surely politics will be fast and furious.

For what it’s worth, by my count Nigeria has 90 bishops, acc. to their web page.  TEC, with roughly 10% of their membership, has, what, 110 bishops?  Each bishop gets one vote, I guess.  Take that for what it is worth.  44 bishops plus ABC and co. from the Church of England. 

Canada has membership of 740,000 and 29 dioceses, whereas Rwanda has 1,000,000 members but 9 dioceses.

Note that this is a little on the alarmist side and not really any attempt at counting heads overall, but when you are talking about far more dramatic action than simply passing Lambeth I.10, there is at least reason for concern here.

Some of the comments on this thread have more or less helped put a finger right on the sore point - how to realign the worldwide Anglican Communion in nothing but a conformed and conservative direction - given that CoE is not yet itself so realigned?  So the issues of lopping off Canterbury repeatedly arises, for as yet, CoE is not conservatively realigned?  And if you think the Canadians and USA-ers are instransigent to being ruled by distant primates from afar, wait till you get to merry old UK.  It is really going to get interesting and busy.  And one barrier is simply that CoE is technically still established, and by legal definition cannot adequately be ruled/conformed from afar.  That rule still sits at home, at least for the time being.

It is uncertain whether a majority of Primates would agree to take action to effectively remove TEC by saying its us or them. 

But the chances are greatly increased by a unified demand for action—along the lines of the Fort Worth resolution—among the US orthodox Bishops sufficiently ahead of Lambeth 2008 to allow the Primates to react.

Such action is not risk free, but neither is any other scenario. It could mean that you end up only in communion with a new grouping of GS led conservative provinces outside of Canterbury.  Litigation may ensue.  But if you are not willing to take that risk you will never be willing to do what is necessary to effect change.

US Bishops—carpe diem!

ABC Rowan will be true to form and do everything within his power to undermine Tanzania and the Global South.  His office stands to lose 2/3 of its funding if he goes against TEC.

The contrast in leadership and decision making between +++Rowan and +++Benedict XVI is stark:

From Reuters: Pope Benedict on Wednesday warned Catholic politicians they risked excommunication from the Church and should not receive communion if they support abortion.

What a marked difference to the continuing Anglican Fudge.

No waiting until Lambeth…somebody please finish this!  I like the move from Ft. Worth…up the pressure and demand a response from somebody, anybody…probably not the ABC though…which is sad.

The liberal usurpers decried the DeS “ultimatum.” Father Jake state the the communique was an ultimatum because it contained a deadline. Most ultimatums have both a deadline and a consequence which the DeS communique did not have. Although, the consequence of non-invitation to Lambeth was implied or, at least, inferred.

What the ABC states is that there should be no consequences of the HOB essentially guaranteed rejection of the other 2 requests of the communique. That might interfere with the listening process!

Is that 2008 or 2080?

Neither. It’s every ten years. I think the typo was in leaving off a two and it should have been 22008.

What’s the big deal, then? Only two more years (in episcofudge).

What the ABC states is that there should be no consequences of the HOB essentially guaranteed rejection of the other 2 requests of the communique.

I don’t know that’s exactly what ABC is stating, but it’s a viable understanding among several. Let us move this thought along just a little…

I definitely recall reading (here and elsewhere) Rowan saying he’ll leave it up to the Primates to decide if TEC has adequately responded to the DeS requests. I wish I could find a link to such press reports. In any event, assuming my memory is correct, he either does what he says or makes a public liar of himself.

So if it follows the Primates decide TEC hasn’t adequately responded, well, they’ve decided. Then what?

Here’s where it gets complex and all sort of options are on the table. They could demand TEC has a listening-only presence at Lambeth. They could demand TEC not attend Lambeth. They could declare TEC out of communion. They could do any number of things.

And Rowan could ignore them, invite all of TEC bishops to Lambeth as full voting bishops and issue a proclomation that TEC is still in communion (at least with Canterbury, CoE and, officially, the AC).

Then it’s fish or cut bait time for the remaining Primates. Either thumb their noses at Rowan and TEC, or shrug their shoulders, say “At least we tried” and get on with adopting The Church of What’s Happening Now.

Far too many options along the way to predict. TEC was given 30SEP07 as a deadline to respond. That deadline will stand because it was given by honest men. They won’t cut it short, even though some see now there is no point in waiting. Like it or not 30SEP07 stands unless Rowan fudges some change to it.

So, we either wait for 30SEP07 or for Rowan to stir up the muck again by changing the date or the requirement. Lambeth is long after that date. Anything can happen before then, and the consequences of anything can be, well, anything.

This is the way the Anglican Communion Ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

TS Elliot - Hollow Men - edited

++Rowan does not like to make decisions. It really is that simple. I think I even understand his thinking on this. However, what he does not see is the damage that will continue occur within the United States and Canada as the orthodox are further marginalized.

In my view, there is no longer any room for the orthodox within TEC. The least we could expect is that the Anglican Communion would insist they be treated fairly until the covenant process is finalized. The problem with that is that there will be no orthodox Anglicans left within TEC by the time that happens (or else they will be so marginalized the end result is the same as if none existed). This was the whole point of the Primatial Council and Vicar scheme.

I am afraid it is going to be up to the Primates to insist that the Primatial Council is formed and a Primatial Vicar appointed regardless of what the HOB and ++KJS does. It should also be made clear to the HOB that if they want to have any input into the final covenant that they will have to comply with the DES Communiqué.

All of this is very messy, and Archbishop Rowan has not helped any by being so equivocal about disciplining the wayward little brats that make up the TEC leadership.

Its partially because he places organisational unity very high on his priority list, but also because of the implications for the Church of England - and there are many who think that is actually far more important than what the Communion does or does not do.

And the Church of England is a very diverse grouping - with conservative evangelicals making up about 15% of the total. The bulk of evangelicals would be of the ‘open’ variety.

The primates are going to have to make a strong move after Sep. 30 if the Anglican Communion is to survive with the Global South.

Lambeth does not appear to me to be a place where political work can be done.  It’s not set up to do that, so far as I can tell, short of pass relatively terse, nonbinding statements that are often pretty thin on substance, like “Resolved: Christians should love each other in the fullness of the Gospel.”  The primates could only do what they did at DES because there were only 38 of them, and they’ve obviously been discussing this stuff among themselves for several years now.

Let’s stop blaming the ABC and TEC for not doing anything possible to solve the current problem.  It is time for the Orthodox to make a move - LEAVE it all behind and start all over again. (My parish has already taken this step !  And GOD has been very good to us).  TEC does not want a lot of empty buildings being left to deteriorate but as long as we keep the so-called TEC property in good repair they will let us.

“he places organizational unity very high on his priority list”

Hogwash! Malarkey! (and a few other choice words)

If he truly placed organizational unity high on his priority list then he would be doing everything in his power to see that the overwhelming mind of the communion as expressed in Lambeth 1.10 was being adhered to!  He would be using the executive authority to see that the consensus of the Communion was being followed! He is not doing so because he is liberally minded.

If the Network/Windsor Bishops and the primates do not do something VERY substantial (i.e. imposing real discipline and realignment) by November, the entire AC is finished.  Rowan is already finished.  It is up to the primates now.

If anyone wants to write all the primates a respectful letter, email me at shawrw5|at|yahoo|dot|com.  I can email you a mail merge that will print out envelopes and letters personally addressed—all you have to do is type in your letter.  The mail merge works for Microsoft Word.

You may well disagree with Archbishop Rowan’s strategies, and even his stance on homosexuality, but I think many of you are criticizing him too strongly.  If you read his books, you will know that he is a very orthodox Christian—and you will find that he is not just a profound thinker but has a deep spirituality as well.  Even though I disagree with some things he has done, I admire him intensely and wish that I had half the Christian maturity that he does.

Otganisational unity means including both conservative and liberal, Spencer.

I happen to think that’s not a long-term possibility either, but I don’t think Rowan would agree.

To an extent, it would be possible within the CofE. I think only the Reform/Anglican Mainstreamers would go and they only make up about 15% of the CofE.

There are certainly voices expressed here such as that of the Daily Telegraph, who think Rowan should led the communion do what it wishes (split, essentially) and concentrate on the CofE.

Hindustaaniwalla Hatterr -
In general, I agree with you.  I just wish I knew what ++Rowan’s strategy was- or that there was a strategy at all.  He is indeed a brilliant writer.  His response to Spong years ago was a masterpiece of theology and rhetoric.  Now, if he would just do something about the fact that for the last 10 years, Spong’s heresies have been increasingly accepted as mainstream theology in the US church, while the theology expressed in ++Rowan’s own writings is being ignored.

In England we are getting more and more into Rowan’s theology and it is having more influence taking us to a deeper level.  I confess I have to struggle but get much out of it when I do.  I am battling with “Silence and Honey Cakes” and “Ponder these Things” at the moment.

Fully agree Hindustaaniwalla Hatterr and wish his efforts well.

I wish I knew what +++Rowan’s position on homosexual activity is, exactly.  I have never read anything in which that position is clearly spelled out, or where he gives any theological explanation for why he believes as he does.  Although he does seem to have “sympathies” for the liberal side, his position seems very nuanced and complex, full of qualifiers and exceptions.  Some of you have said that he is not a “friend” of the conservative side, but I don’t think he is fully friendly to the liberal side, either.  More importantly, on the whole he seems willing to surrender his own personal opinions in order to follow the mind of the communion.

I think that he does have a strategy, and that his strategy is informed not so much by politics but by his sense of spirituality.  If you read “Silence and Honey Cakes,” you can see the importance he places on living in community and, when difficulties arise, not “running away” from them by splitting off and joining another community, but by dealing with them in that community.  In that way, one learns the importance of forgiveness and reconciliation, and begins to appreciate the depths of one’s own sinfulness.  These ideas, which are based on +++Rowan’s reading of the early desert fathers’ methods of living together in their desert communities, are at the heart of +++Rowan’s decision-making processes and strategy.  My guess is that this is the key reason why he wants to keep everyone at the table (or at least it is his theological justification for it), and politics is secondary.

Very interesting, in many ways he does seem to be trying to give a Christian response in all of this; infuriating as it appears to be to people on all sides who wish him to endorse their view as right.  He seems to see it as a process in which he has put his own views on one side and to be seeking to allow the community of all Anglicans to speak and discern a way forward if there is one.  He has however been pretty clear on the need to stop the persecution as were all the primates.  This has not happened; in some areas it has accelerated and is backfiring.

On his personal view on the presenting issues I have no idea, but there was this:-
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/gays_must_change_says_archbishop_rowan_williams/
As Canon Harmon pointed out his views have depth and are not easy to just dismiss as this or that on a superficial level of analysis.

Pretend we are on a lifeboat at sea and a rescue boat comes along.  The captain is a timid soul who constatnly worries about damaging his equipment in the effort to save us.  The XO is born decision maker who knows his duty is to save those stranded at sea.
Are we going to waste hours and hours trying to appeal to the sense of duty of the captain or are we going to align with the XO who is trying to save us?

The Captain is faced with a decision, those in the lifeboat have left the ship which is in trouble, holed and with mutineers on the decks battling it out with Captain Bligh and his officers on the bridge.  Meanwhile many passengers and crew are trapped below decks.  Does he try to head for the ship with his fellow Captains and offer the ship assistance with plugging the hole and making her seaworthy for all aboard and to which the lifeboat may or may not return.  Or limit his efforts to rescuing those in the lifeboat who can be rescued later and who the XO has already indicated that he will separate off in the ships launch for if as necessary.

Trouble is as the Captain brings his vessel alongside, the hulk’s officers lob eggs at him and his co-captains because he is offending their polity.  Who suffers? the trapped passengers and crew below.

Okay! I admit I am “BLONDE” but I have asked this question before and will ask it again…..(because I have gotten no response or answer). It is and has been clear that ABC ++Rowen is not a supporter of the orthodox. Words, writings, actions, & lack of actions of his are all solid proof of this! And with the CofE basically in the same boiling pot as ECUSA with ordaining gay priests, blessings same sax unions, etc… Why would we want to be a part of that apostacy as well? Why can’t the global south crerate their own See as we are all aware that ++Akinola isn’t anymore happy with the See of Canterbury as most all the orthodox are. Why do we keep beating a dead horse and have this empty hope of hanging on to wait and see what will happen next when in fact it is just more of the same infinity of nothingness!

I agree! The vast majority of dioceses that want to remove themselves from this “garbage” (for lack of a better word at ths point) needs to press forward as I feel that 815 will not be able to pursue legal action against them without breaking the bank!

DOK4HS- I tend to agree with you. 

But there are those here who believe that as a practical matter it will be impossible to organize and maintain an viable Anglican presence around anything other than Canterbury.  Our own conduct gives some support to this theory. Just look at the acrimonious (and endless) debate that occurs whenever WO compromise is discussed, or even contemperary verses traditional worship! 

Where does this leave everyone? For those in TEC, Fort Worth may provided the way.  They have essentially announced they are leaving soon after Sept. 30 unless TEC changes course and accepts the Communique.  This action, if joined by others, will preempt the ABC’s trial balloon of an All is Well Lambeth conference involving non-compliant TEC Bishops to “focus on mission”.  It places maximum pressure on the Primate to force the ABC to make a decision he does not want to make, but has to make if he wishes to remain leader of anything other than a dead shell of a church.  It may very well not work—like I am not optimistic at all that the ABC will be with the orthodox in the end. But if that is the outcome it is better to know it now, before further attrition makes it all moot. At that point, those of us that want to make a go of an Anglican church in the US, even without Canterbury, can wear ourselves out trying.

Timothy, I think Bill Tighe’s idea of a Lambeth packed with GS bishops is worth some thought.  Of course, we would rather not have Gene Robinson and his consecrators invited to Lambeth; yes, if we got to that point, it would be a betrayal of the Primates’ actions in DES.  On the other hand, I’m pretty sure that, without regard to what Rowan Williams has in mind, it won’t be an “All is Well Lambeth Conference.”  The result, under Dr. Tighe’s proposal, is as close to a done deal as one can get in the Anglican Communion.  And that result will have been delivered by what can only be considered a true Communion-wide council, as opposed to either a limited body like the collected Primates or a laity-bureaucrat-clergy collection like the ACC/General Convention (and therefore not a council).

Assuming no rebellion from ECUSA fellow-travelers, that could very well set up a viable Canterbury-focused solution.

RE: “Why can’t the Global South crerate their own See as we are all aware that ++Akinola isn’t anymore happy with the See of Canterbury as most all the orthodox are.”

Hi DOK4HS, I think this is a really good question.

Why do you suppose it is that the orthodox Global South has not exited the Anglican Communion yet, and merely created their own thing?

I think if you could answer that you might be on to some really interesting insights about this situation in which we find ourselves.

Sarah,

How likely do you think the scenario is where after 9/30/07, assuming the primates actually choose to exclude TEC, that Rowan just invites them anyway to his meeting, and calls a second meeting for the GS, since they might not want to meet with Our Lady of Litigation? That way, there is in effect two seperate Lambeth meetings and two AC’s, each in communion with him, but not with each other?

In that scenario, Akinola et al are again put on the hotseat as to whether they see any point to going to Lambeth 1 or Lambeth 2 or neither? Not a good scenario, but if I were Rowan it is exactly what I would do. That way, all the efforts of the Primates will be voided with just a stroke of his pen, while simultaneously he can say that he didn’t exclude anyone, but simultaneously honored the will of the primates!

I don’t disagree that Rowan is a deep thinker.  His theological offerings are certainly food for thought.  I would not go so far as to say they are orthodox however.  My complaint however is not with his theological views, it is with his leadership ability.  On that matter there is simply no other conclusion other than he has failed miserably in providing effective leadership.  His job is not to keep all the voices at the table, his job is to promote the consensus of the communion.  He is trying to be a moderator, we need a leader!

As for the various scenarios, I fear that with every delay the fracture grows deeper.

Rowan could have used his executive influence to repudiate ECUSA after 2003.  He could have immediately established a Lambeth invitation prerequisite for all ECUSA bishops who voted for VGR or were present at the consecration to sign a recantation.  He could have later added an additional Windsor compliant statement signatory for all bishops.  Had he taken such a clear leadership to uphold the established mind of the communion, I feel quite certain that the only ones who would not have agreed to this would be about a dozen North American Bishops.  The AC would have been saved including the diverse center with only a few liberal activists missing.  The left leaning moderates would have moved more in line with the mind of the communion.  In short, we would not be in the mess we are now.  Yes we would have lost a few heretics, but I hardly consider that a loss.  All of this was within his authority and still is for that matter.  The longer this drags out the more deep the division grows within the church.  I am not just speaking of liberal vs conservative, but division between conservatives and other conservatives, between liberals and other liberals and between moderates and other moderates.  A lack of leadership and a lack of a clear focus and direction leads only to chaos, division, acrimony on all fronts, and ultimately anarchy.  This is where we are headed and I fear there is very little hope left to save the AC at this point.  I am even beginning to wonder if the inevitable AC split will result in just two sides or as many as six.  The longer this goes on, the likelihood that it will be closer to six than two is rapidly increasing.

We need leadership now or Jerusalem will be destroyed and we will all be in exile. Perhaps it is already too late…

Phil, Others here have informed me that Lambeth is not a good forum for definative action against TEC for a number of reasons.  The ABC has even more influence over the schedule/agenda than in Tanzania, and even if the matter could be raised in the right fashion the outcome of a vote, given the attendence, is uncertain.

What is needed is a Primates meeting, but even that is an uncertain vote.  If only the other Dioceses would join Fort Worth, so there would be maximum pressure on the Primates to act.

Frances,
Many Israelites were faithful people, yet Jerusalem fell none the less.  The sad fact is that God’s people suffer at the hands of their leaders.  Rowan answers only to God very true, but his actions do affect others for good or evil and it these actions, not his relationship to God, which is in question.

Timothy,
“If only the other Dioceses would join Fort Worth, so there would be maximum pressure on the primates to act” – Amen!  All Network dioceses should ban together now as a unified body and join with Ft Worth.  Carpe diem!