Oh…that mitre…

“the primates agreed statements on climate change and on the murder of David Kato, an open letter to President Robert Mugabe on the persecution of Anglicans in Zimbabwe, and a statement on the church’s response to violence against women and girls.”

Interestingly, these Primates have no direct influence over climate change, the murder of Mr. Kato or violence against women and girls.  A statement against persecution of Anglicans anywhere seems appropriate for the primates, but why limit it to Anglicans in Zimbabwe? 

Cf. King Cnut:  “Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes; but the tide failed to stop. According to Henry, Cnut leapt backwards and said “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.” He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnut_the_Great#Ruler_of_the_waves

On the other hand, a real agenda for Anglican Primates would be:
—Anglican doctrine/practices and enforcement, what limits imposed on the Communion, what limits, if any, imposed on the national churches with regard to local dioceses.
—Measures to improve Bible literacy, if relevant to being an Anglican
—the impact on the church of increasing secularization of western society and the post-Christian era
—Need for seminaries, Bibles in new dialects and languages, priests, etc given the expansion in Africa
—The challenge posed by the Anglican Ordinate in the Catholic church and impact on Anglican-Catholic relations
—The cost and strains created by the property fights in the US over church ownership—both on the TEC and the local congregations
If there were any vitality in the leadership, I would think those are the sort of items that would be on their agenda—whether or not they wished to make a statement at the end.

Not only the mitre… is it my imagination or is KJS’ nose finally starting to grow from all the half-truths and zero-truths?

In the case of KJS and her fellow revisionists in ECUSA (and in the other “main-line” churches), you would have to define “truth” by how it is situationally applied

It appears, situationally, that “truth” is what advances the revisionist ‘cause,’ and that un"truth” is whatever impedes that ‘cause.’ 

In addition, the revisionists feel free to label these un"truths” as literalism, bigotry, Scripturalism, unenlightened theology, etc.