If that IS what he meant why didnt he say it?

The paraphrase is helpful.  However, in order to be accurate and truthful, it should be changed at one critical point - instead of ‘a different path *of* Anglicanism’ it should read, ‘a different path *apart from* Anglicanism’.

This is where I find fault with Jordan Hylden’s assessment, ‘Brave New Church’.  TEC after GC09, is not going forward to be a church in any truthful faithful sense of the word.  Christ came to bring people out of bondage, overcome the power of sin and death.  TEC is celebrating and affirming bondage to sin and death. 

The Church is to follow in Christ’s ministry (Isaiah 61:1-4 and Luke 4:18-19) and lead people in the way of the Cross (Galatians 5:24) crucifying the flesh with its sinful desires and becoming new creations (II Corinthians 5:17). 
TEC has chosen the easy broad way of the flesh and natural mind, not the hard, narrow painful way of redemption and sanctification.  The way of the Cross is not painless or easy, but it’s glorious an glorious…and ‘afterward it yeildeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness’ (Hebrews 12:11).  The way of the Cross is the way of life.

TEC has chosen the way that leads to destruction and death.

Would he did speak so loudly but he still doesn’t want to carry much of a stick.

Nice job by Ms. Evans.  I wish Rowan had said it like that.

I don’t think this captures the distilled essence of Rowan’s missive at all, which was to kick the can down the alley yet again.  Anything resembling resolve, determination or backbone was thoroughly undercut by equivocation, temporizing and deference to processes that have proven empty and documents as yet undrafted.  It was a 21st-Century reprise of Augustine’s prayer, “Lord, make me virtuous, but not today.”

Americans might do well to learn more than one language: English versus American.