No, I think this is a point he deliberately avoided. I suspect it will depend upon whether ECUSA can separate into two provinces without coercion. At this point he does not know whether it will, or whether that will be sufficient for all the primates. But he can make that decision, and decide what any conditions on such invitation might be, based on the facts down the road.

I'm not so sure about the Lambeth invitations in light of this comment from Dr. Williams:

“Whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship. This would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions—and sacramental actions in particular—just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other churches.”

I agree. I think it's likely that virtually all TEC bishops will be invited.

Speaking of two tier I think it's pretty safe to say that WR is one tier and this statement is another. I think the response to WR determines invites to Lambeth and this statement of today indicates some of the work to be going on there. I think we will see for the next 10+ years, haggling over a Covenant/Anglican Constitution. If the right wing elements don't like this they may act unilaterally and as they like but I guess that'd also contravene the polity being laid out here.

Today's paper is a call to a certain process convened and roughed out by ABC. TEC has already in resolutions signed on to Covenant haggling.

From the appearance of certain items however it would seem that the end result of the Covenant as it sounds in this release, would include something along the lines of "gays and lesbians as such" are fine but the Church is forced to warn against certain behaviors like a loving relationship between two same sex individuals because this may cause you to go to hell. Sorry.

But then again the details on that beyond ringing the bell to come and haggle, are not fleshed out.

I think Williams says and does not say things in his statement for specific reasons. I also think it is a mistake to take this statement as going beyond the opening of a realignment, with details such as this to be worked out. And let us not also forget that the primates, in the global south and elsewhere, will undoubtedly be weighing in again soon.

But I think the thing that concerns me about the question is what it suggests it may mean for ECUSA/TEC to think it is assured of full, participating invitations to Lambeth, no matter what it does between now and 2008. I may be reading too much into it, but is it being suggested as a basis for arguing against allowing the orthodox to separate into a full communion association, that there is no downside? Is it to be taken as support for whatever punitive or coercive action ECUSA might desire against the orthodox parishes and diocese? I hardly think you can get there from William's statement. In fact, I think such steps would almost surely accelerate a separate US structure and clear disinvitation.

Of course, that is assuming one does not want that.

PD, all I was trying to say was that the archbishop seems to be laying the groundwork to invite the US bishops to Lambeth. I wasn't even suggesting that I thought that was necessarily a good thing. Just trying to read the tea leaves.