There's absolutely no chance of a process such as that suggested by Williams being complete within two years.

Conservatives casting votes for the new PB represents an "unmitigated evil"--Ouch!! I'm curious to know who the culprits are as well as who the "unmitigated evil" statement came from?

I have a long history of disagreeing with Abp. Jensen of Sydney, but he may be right when he claims in the Conger article that the Windsor vision of Anglicanism as an organic union tied by bounds of affection is a fantasy. The truth, he suggests, is that Anglicanism is a loose network of autonomous churches that have much in common, but also much that divides. We might be better off to admit (if not exactly embrace) that the Anglican Communion as much more than a voluntary fellowship is not a past, present, or likely future reality.

If a church chooses to identify itself as Anglican, recognition by Sydney, Canterbury, or Nigeria does not make it more or less a part of the loose network of Anglican churches. All Anglican churches should be free to recognize full, impaired, or even broken communion with one another. Thus, Sydney can have closer relations with the Church of England in South Africa (out of communion with Canterbury) than with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa (which is in communion). Recife can be closer to Southern Cone than to Brazil. +Southwark can recognize +New Hampshire as an Anglican bishop when +Rochester does not.

Under the Sydney model, AMiA, CANA, REC, and APCK would all have an equal claim to be Anglican with TEC, and other Anglican churches could share mission and/or communion with one, several, or all of them. Joint ventures in mission would not imply full communion any more than similar ventures across ecumenical or interfaith lines. Membership in the Anglican network would no more imply a common theology or mutual recognition of ministry than membership in the World Council of Churches. African reasserters could accept American money without American ideas, just as African reappraisers could accept Sydney money without becoming Calvinists.

Obviously, this model is completely inconsistent with the theology of the Church embodied in the Virginia and Windsor Reports and in the recent meditation by +Canterbury. However, that theology requires that those who wish to call themselves Anglican embrace the Cross of self-denial. If there is no real chance that groups as diverse as TEC, Nigeria, and Australia will be willing to sign on to a Covenant that limits their local freedom in any significant regard, recognizing Anglicanism as a loose network of potential partners in mission might be a good idea.

I've argued for a long time that we are neither a federation (which would require some sort of written Articles) nor a world-church (which would require a single hierarchy) but much more in the tradition of the Eastern churches: a communion. (J Robt Wright's essay in the pre-GC Anglican Theological Review reflected this observation as well.) As I see it, the pressure now is between those who say the want a Communion but are really pushing for either a Federation or a World-Church. The idea of a fellowship of "national" churches bound by a common tradition and mutual respect and geared for mission seems to have fallen by the wayside under the pressure for more centralized authority or a fractious club concerned mostly with its membership rather than its mission.

The idea of mutual submission, and embracing the Cross of self-denial is wonderful. But it only works if everyone agrees. I'm reminded of the quote attributed to M. Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Christianity. "A wonderful idea; why doesn't someone try it." With the present state of affairs, those who laid down their ecclesiastical arms, so to speak, would simply become the victims of the "lowest common dominator."

A loose network united in mission? A good idea; why doesn't someone try it.

Dale ; I think that makes sense - whatever view we think is right, I don't think its realistic to expect any group to abandon what they sincerely believe.

A simple solution to the issue of the Lambeth Conference potential schism. Don't have the next Lambeth Conference.
We all know it is very expensive, it will be controversial and achieve very little. So why not give it a rest this time, and donate the money saved to a worthy cause.

Tobias-

Does the Lutheran World Federation (which self-describes as a communion) fit the model of a loose network united in mission?

Remember the bumper sticker that read "The Religious Right is Neither"? Well, hasn't it become abundantly clear that "The Anglican Communion is Neither"?... at least not Anglican in the sense of broad, roomy, tolerant, generous, etc. we've always understood it to be. We are a communion only in that we do not come at each other with guns and knives.

I really think its time to call it a day. The solution to all this is that there ain't a solution to all this. The ABC is no more going to appease Adolph Akinola than Nevill Chamberland. Even if I were willing to sit on the back seat of the Anglcan bus (which I am not), it would not satify our Global South contingent and their Global North counterparts.

The only thing to do is bail. Let's forgo the next few years of brain damage and devote our energy toward forming the world wide Episcopal Communion with like-minded folks and get on with the work of proclaiming an inclusive Gospel as a vivid contrast to what the puritans are up to.

Well said, Brant. I and many others from the UK will certainly join you in doing so - leaving the conservatives and Williams the Spineless to get on with it.

Frankly, if the 'church catholic'is the highest priority have the courage of your convictions and return to Rome.