Speaking to journalists at the once-in-a-decade Lambeth Conference, Dr Williams said: “I’m looking for consent, not coercion, but unless we do have something about which we consent, which we trust to resolve some of our differences, we shall be flying further apart.
“It’s not as if we have co-existed without any impact on one another as local churches. There have to be protocols and conventions by which we recognise one another as churches, by which we understand and manage the exchange between ourselves.
“The difficulties we presently face have a lot to do with that recognition. No-one has the authority to impose. We have to do it by ourselves. That also means some may consent and some won’t, and that in itself has implications.”
Reading this and the thread below regarding the Windsor Continuation Group, it’s becoming apparent that everyone is interested in talking about what is needed to resolve the “issues,” but no one appears willing to actually do anything. They make Vladimir and Estragon look like Teddy Roosevelt charging up San Juan Hill.
To what, pray tell Lord Archbishop, are we to consent? “The process”?
#2–Check out the method of the bishop of Upper SC. You “consent” to the “Windsor process”, then inhibit anyone who is acutally following it. It’s all really quite simple.
David Keller (#3),
Could you explain what Upper S.C. event(s) you are referring to?
#4–Bishop Henderson is the Chair of the Title IV “Inquisition” Committee for bishops. I find his actions in this reguard to be personally disquieting. Also, one might argue the final correctness of his inhibition of Fr. Gray, but he was not receptive, and has not ever been, to anything having any conceivable connection to Bp. Duncan or the Network. All of these issues could have been handled in a Christian manner but instead were handled as legal matters, to which I continue to reserve the right to object.