“It is close enough, though I think we do well to remember that the Anglican Communion is an historical accident: the spread of Anglicanism globally and the emergence of the Anglican Communion as we know it was not the result of a comprehensive strategy or clear intention.”

So, the spread of the Gospel of Salvation through Jesus Christ by the Anglican portion of the Church catholic was merely an “accident?”

The fact that it happened to be the Anglican Church that spread to many countries in Africa, Asia, and the Americas is an historical accident.  If it had not been the Anglican Church, it would likely have been the Roman Catholic Church or one of the Protestant or Reformed Churches.  I believe that’s what he means by “historical accident.”

We spread around the world on the back of British colonialism, and that is a heritage one might well have mixed feelings about.  The British did some good in their colonies and some… let’s say, less-than-good.  Both of those are part of the Anglican heritage in former British colonies.

There are a couple of points in this piece, which deserve highlighting, as this statement is considered.  I believe they indicate telling points, regarding the beliefs held by many within the Dio of Northern California.  These points are contained in sections 5 & 6 in the center of this document.  In his section 5 +Barry illustrates the disconnection of the modernist church from its historical foundation and authority.  This is followed by the last sentence in item 6 where he says: “Who determines what constitutes “our best scholarship”? What is the place of the laity in this work of authoritative definition?”  This is a very significant point, relating to the acceptance of traditional teaching.

Let’s see.
God don’t make no accidents.  (Episcopal gospel before today))
The AC is an historical accident.  (Episcopal gospel today)
Ergo, The AC is not an historical accident and is an act of God.
Therefore,
We should pay attention to the Anglican Communion.

NO!  NO!  NO!  That can’t be right.  Let’s fudge! 
God don’t make no accidents.
GLBT? agenda in charge of General Convention.
Therefore,
God has spoken through General Convention!

YES!  YES!  YES!
We like that better!

But, if the first how the latter?  And if the latter, why not the first?

#4, where you are going wrong in this, is that you are presuming that the comments posted are coming from an intellectual position that holds logic and holds together when questioned. 

It doesn’t.