Indeed the AbC has no authority in the Province of Central Africa but the man whom he has appointed to his own court of reference does, Archbishop Bernard Malango. However, whilst that archbishop seems ever ready to judge those outside his own jurisdiction and to intervene across boundaries, he does not seem willing or able to put his own house in order.

Anglicanus may be confusing the Panel of Reference (which Malango does not belong to) with the Lambeth Commission on Communion (which produced the Windsor Report and which Malango belonged to).

I agree that this marks a good step forward on Zimbabwe for Rowan Willams' part - especially for the clerical refugees he's helped. The Archbishop of Canterbury should certainly be congratulated for this.

But it is a pitifully inadaquate response to the overall situation. We now have a situation where:
- documented accusations of an extermely grave nature, including incitement to murder, have been made against Bishop Kunonga;
- Lambeth Palace says that "the Church of England has received and assisted clerical refugees from the diocese of Harare;”
- the efforts of faithful Anglicans within Harare Diocese to resolve the situation justly have been systematically sabotaged by their Pimate, Archbishop Malango;
- and the Anglican Communion as a whole has done NOTHING to bring either Bishop Kunonga or Archbishop Malango to account for this, and end the flagrant injustices committed in its name by this pair.

Is this not, to quote from the Panel of Reference's Mandate (at http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/reference/mandate.cfm ), a situation "where there is serious dispute concerning the adequacy of schemes of delegated or extended episcopal oversight or other extraordinary arrangements which may be needed to provide for parishes which find it impossible in all conscience to accept the direct ministry of their own diocesan bishop or for dioceses in dispute with their provincial authorities"?

What does it say about the Anglican Communion's sense of proportion and committment to Christ's Gospel, that we are prepared to devote astonishing amounts of energy to the topics of women bishops and homosexuality, but are prepared to at the same time encourage by our inaction the murderous Bishop Kunonga and his ally Archbishop Malango?

Whatever we think about women bishops and homosexuality, can't we lay those disputes - important as they are - to one side whilst we address the infinitely more urgent challenge that the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe poses? Or will we only take action if Bishop Kunonga has a sex change, announces that he has a same-sex partner, and Archbishop Malango then announces that he is still in full communion with his bishop?

Are we a church following Christ, or a squabbling group of petty politicians? I look forward to the day when the Archbishop of Canterbury gives the kind of leadership on Zimbabwe that the church gave on the apartheid regime in South Africa. His actions over the clerical refugees are a start; lets see the job finished.

The Panel of Reference's mandate does not mention either women bishops or homosexuality, so presumably it is open to any of those mentioned to write in and ask for its intervention?