Kendall Harmon is a gentleman and a scholar, both designations that I value. His opinion is duly noted.

Some things in his article I disagree with; and on some I disagree on the import he gives. For example, the Windsor Report calls for expression of regret for "breaching the bonds of affection." That might not be sufficiently specific for many, including Dr. Harmon; but it is the language of Windsor. The language of Resolution 2006-A161 not only expresses "regret for straining the bonds of affection," the specific Windsor language, but also offers "sincerest apology" and asks "forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion...." By the same token, A159 "reaffirm[s] the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion...." Surely that expresses clearly the General Convention's real desire that TEC continue to participate in the Anglican Communion.

I acknowledge his point that B033 might not actually reflect the mind of General Convention in 2006 (and certainly might not in 2009). I was also in the room when it was passed and I recognize the question he raises. At the same time, it is the resolution that passed; and as such is as close to the mind of General Convention as we can come until it convenes again.

For Dr. Harmon these and other responses are not adequate. But that raises important questions: adequate to whom, and to what. The answer to the first question looks to two responses. The first is whether they're adequate to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to all three of the Instruments of Communion. The second is whether they're adequate for the 2009 General Convention to reaffirm.

The answer to the second question, "to what," is also largely in the hands of Canterbury and the Instruments - and not simply, as is often implied, the Primates Meeting, much less the Global South Steering Committee. If the Instruments see these responses as adequate to remain in conversation and growth together, then they are functionally adequate to maintain the Communion.

And regarding the answers to questions of adequacy - to whom and for what - Dr. Harmon's opinion and my opinion and other opinions are interesting but not critical.

And having written my last post, I have just received from ACNS the Report of the Communion Sub-Group regarding the response of General Convention to the Windsor Report. Now, that is an opinion that is critical.

To an issue that continues to interest me...whether or not the primates will be added to the ACC ex-officio? How many? Who will determine who shall be added? Will a 2/3 ratification by the primates be necessary to accomplish this? What exactly is being proposed here and how will such a change affect the ACC as a "legislative" (and I use the term loosely), body? Will they have full voting privileges? Will there be 6? How does this relate to resolutions made at Dromantine? Thank you?

"Kendall Harmon is a gentleman and a scholar..."

Sorry to weigh in (with my 1300 years of tradition) but No, no one who relies on Robert Gagnon is a scholar and no one who permits the sort of thing that goes at Titusonline is a gentleman.