Yes. The solution is simple. Use the existing structure of the Anglican Consultative Council more frequently to do what they are constitutionally designed to do: consult with one another.

In order for this to work, the constitution of the ACC has to be left alone; keep the Primates out as voting members; keep the membership as it is so that every Province has an equal voice regardless of size; have them meet two to three times a year.

Maybe, and this is a very large maybe, one could make the Primates Meeting a kind an Upper House, not like the US Senate but more like the House of Lords, so that some legislation must pass both houses, but most of the real work happens in the ACC.

It's simple. It's synodical and it's there.

We need greater theological coherence. No structure can produce this. Only graced conversation. Once we have the coherence, we will be able to create new structures that will sustain unity-in-diversity again. Not all present Anglicans will be able to be part of that. Only colonial history and financial dependency has ever held the AC together. We need to find a missional and theological basis, without becoming a confessional church.

Williams' proposals, like the WR and the Primates Communique, are unacceptable. We need unconditional commitment to the authority of local synods, reasonable provision for dissent, and global consultation. We already have that, though consultation can be strengthened and formalized. At the Communion level and at the level of the member churches of the AC, we need sufficient agreement to sustain a conversation and argument. I don't think we could ever have that with the radical right. We might be able to have it with other conservatives.

I am not convinced that governance is the solution. It may be helpful in implementing a solution, but the root problem is this: we need to be willing to set aside our own views for a moment and look at these issues through someone else's eyes. We need to make a genuine effort to understand each others' point of view, and that effort must be mutual.

I agree with ATGerns here. The ACC (without the heavy hands of some of our Primates) offers a better route forward.

Probably betrays my American democratic idealism, though!

The tradition holds that conciliar bodies tend to facilitate the empathetic conversation that Paul Martin desires. I desire it, too.

It all raises another interesting question -- what have been the reasons driving leaning so heavily in recent years on the Primates? Threats on the life and unity of the Communion? That's the real poison in the well at the moment.

My answer is No. T

here is not problem in the Anglican Communion that e-mail cannot solve. That is if the 38 churches want to stay friends.

If not - no structural arrangements will help.

We should start by reaffirming very clearly the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral as THE Anglican vision for - and understanding of - church unity, that is, THE shared standard for being in full communion.

In a letter to the Episcopal Majority group last year, Archbishop Williams said that "the Quadrilateral may need some glossing or expansion." This alone speaks volumes and begs answers. If we create a different standard for unity within the Communion than the one we have for and with our ecumenical partners worldwide, then, in effect, we have no real standard for unity at all - or we have a senseless double-standard.

That senseless - and rather crass - double-standard apparently being:

"No gays allowed" among Anglican bishops (at least not publicly, wink-nudge), and no same-sex unions/marriage for Anglicans (at least not publicly, wink-nudge).

But no worries about all that, of course, if you are "outside" the Anglican Communion. We are perfectly happy to be in full communion with you, dear Church of Sweden and others.

Goran Kock-Swane and Paul Martin: My suggestion about using the ACC better has to do with the fact that fundamentally the only solution we have is not more governance, but more conversation, more consultation.

What we need is a pastoral and theological solution, not a structural one.

Since we sinful humans still need some structure in the right proportion to function well, let's stick with a process that is based on dialogue.

We have a process already that does not have the burden of making laws that have to be enforced but instead works through consultation and discussion both between and within provinces.

I think the existing ACC structure only ramped up a little bit, can provide us with as much structure as we need and can handle as a Communion. We don't have to invent anything new, just use what we have well.

The key is focusing on process and relationship, not more rules.

I tend to agree with Frs. Gerns, Helmer, and Carroll.

The ACC is more polycentric and diffuse in approach and therefore is more conciliar and open to hearing from a wider swath of voices and to enrich sustaining relationships across differences.

Because the ACC brings in three of our four orders, it is not dominated by clergy (we need to seriously consider including the diaconal voice as they are often folks on the front lines along with the laity) and we hear from theologians, some of our finest having always been laity as well as experiences in sharing the Good News on the ground in a variety of contexts.

In such a structure, I wouldn't feel that lgbt Anglicans would be so easily pushed out either as not having voice. The Primates as far as I can tell, however, would quickly prevent such a voice from being heard at all even as we play word games with "listening". Hence, my deep distrust of centralizing structures around the upper eschalons of the episcopate. Polycentric notions move the Center back to Christ as well as the Circumference, and I think preserve a sense of eschatological judgment on our structures appropriate to the Anglican tendency to recognize the Church errs--what we once called humility. Also, such structures are not easily pushed about in the ways that we've seen of late with demands to give up TEC's polity immediately to fit PV schemes because the Primates can't wait. Such structures insist upon waiting and opening space and response because not so easily subverted.

I also think however some folks won't join in no matter what, and there is a point where rather than remain codependent, we have to respect that they won't without completely giving up our various positions that allow for integrity across our broadly catholic approach to polity, governance, or what we might call ecclesiology.

There's nothing wrong with appropriate boundaries. There's nothing wrong with an association that binds us with promises to others. The devil is in the details.

A covenant structure with an appropriate supermajority for taking a disciplinary action against a province would provide an enforcable boundary without unfairly punishing innovation.

Not to dwell too much on this, but...

Maybe we really should ask ourselves why it is that some full-communion arrangements appear to work better than others. What comes to mind is the ecumenical Porvoo Communion, of which the Anglican Churches of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are a full and constituent part, together with a number of Nordic and Baltic (Lutheran) Churches, including the Church of Sweden. (See: http://www.porvoochurches.org)

Does this communion work so well perhaps because it is not based on enforcing central governance, uniformity and the binding rule of voting majorities? The Church of Sweden announced recently that it will allow the blessing of same-sex unions, but this has apparently caused no crisis for or within the Church of England, which, under the Porvoo agreement, is in full communion with all other member churches and is able to exchange clergy and communicant membership freely. Nigeria, for its part, doesn't appear to care that it is in full communion with a church that is in full communion with a church that blesses same-sex unions. So everyone is happy.

I concur that the ACC is the way to go. However, it is not quite up to par when ti comes to equal representation of the provinces. At present, many of the provinces are only represented by one or two persons. I would suggest that each province ought to be represented by three: bishop, priest or deacon, and lay person.

ATGerns wrote: "... not more governance, but more conversation, more consultation."

Quite. Which is what I shortened to e-mail ;=)

And, of course, with all 4 orders on board.

(but beware of anything which might expell someone!)

The way the world is going is network centric organization- not centralized organization. Relationships and common tasks (like MDGs, companion relationships, ERD, etc) will be the "structure" that will last over time. Primates councils, ACC, etc are just busy work for bureaucrats. Ideas that come from what works locally may bubble up, be adopted and spread throughout (or rejected as unworkable) It is a new organic mode of working together. Those who want to be Anglicans can be - join the dance.

I think that the ACC is the way to go as long as it remains Consultative. In times of stress we all tend to return to old and inadequate means of coping, and control is one of those. The size and breadth of the communion makes it difficult for us all to face each other as people rather than objects.