This is as close as he comes to admitting ”˜schism’. In fact he specifically rejects the word in paragraph 24, describing it as simply “two styles of being Anglican”. Nevertheless, it envisages a future quite unlike the present, resulting from the decisions and actions of TEC and others.
Those of us who believe TEC is schismatic, who basically support ACNA and who are convinced the Covenant is a dead duck should not greet Dr Williams’ statement with automatic scorn. Its length is no more than we would expect from him, and its willingness to see both sides is intrinsic to his own theology. Nevertheless, there must still be a concern that he does not seem to accept the fundamental logic of what must happen when people pull in different directions.
Holding people together in such circumstances, whether by a covenant or by some other convention, may succeed, but it is in principle contrary to the underlying processes. Unless some means may be found by which TEC and others within the Communion can be made to pull in the same direction, then tensions will continue and a split is virtually inevitable.
I do not receive it with scorn but it has been said by him before and he has undermined the leadership of the primates. I do not believe he has the strength of will or conviction to do what needs to be done and his lack of conviction will lead to the further fracturing of the AC.
Choices have consequences.
Moreover schism makes it possible for more people to become bishops. How can that be a bad thing?
As one of the comments on the original post indicated, there seems to be more than a little suggestion in the ABC’s letter that the shifting of the ecumenical relations by Orthodox and Roman churches from certain parts of the Anglican communion to the the more orthodox ACNA and GAFCON parts may be having some impact on those who value that.