Nit-picking, but only because such nits are so distracting…to what destination was the ABC “towing the line?”

Other than that, Dr. Moore had only to say in answer to the ABC’s performance - He answered ‘NO’ by his actions when asked by the world’s Christians, “Do you follow Christ’s laws?”

Re “towing the line” - well spotted! :o)

“News briefs are all abuzz about who the next A.B.C. should be. “A ‘Traditionalist’ say Conservative MPs.” But it will take more than a Traditionalist to bring the Communion back together. It will take someone with enormous diplomatic skills, a firm resolve to make the Gospel of Jesus Christ the central touchstone of his archepiscopacy, a great sensitivity towards those who don’t understand “episcospeak” or “academiceze”, and a heart for mission as the central challenge of the age. Plus it will take someone with a very tough skin. On that point Rowan Williams is dead right.”

Yes, many such people can be found in Anglican jurisdictions outside the British Isles.  We have seen how firm, godly and mission-minded leaders just keep rising up to replace the retirees in Global South provinces. But the odds of such an outsider being chosen as ABC would be virtually nil, I think. 

Within England, I can think of only one bishop who has already demonstrated in practical terms that he has the sensitivity, political savvy, traditional doctrine, thick hide and *backbone* to come anywhere close to the criteria put forward by Rev. Moore.  He rigorously enforces the rules as they stand now, without undue favour, and orthodox evangelicals and anglo-catholics have found they can operate under his oversight without any need to take schismatic measures.  If he is nominated, the CofE might just stave off the advent of a British ACNA.

Like Frank Griswold, another liberal Anglo-Catholic, his “hear no evil, see no evil” mindset revealed an unbiblical anthropology. “Why can’t people just be nice?” Without a clear understanding of sin, that in its intellectual form translates into error, he was mentally unprepared for the essential leadership role as disciplinarian

This was a thoughtful piece and I enjoyed it. However the suggestion that Archbishop Rowan was led into a mediatorial role simply because he desired to be “nice” or that he lacks a clear understanding of sin, is IMO gravely mistaken. From his earliest published writings had an almost obsessive concern with the ways in which the church might find itself mired in error and sin. However his remedy - discipline as he understands it - is to edge closer to being the church that God desires - that is a church marked by the Spiritual disciplines of humility, charity, mercy, prayer, hope, faithfulness etc.

One may disagree with parts of this view - and I think I do - but his actions stem not from a lack of awareness of sin - but from precisely the opposite. That is, an almost obsessive concern with the, doubtless real and serious, spiritual dangers of sinful pride and arrogance.