Reconstructing GC2006 for Communion Building:
Further Comments on the Communion Sub-group Report
by Michael Poon
Singapore at the verge of Ash Wednesday, 2007.

Excerpt:

"The Sub-group’s brief was simple: Did the decisions at GC2006 meet the three specific Dromantine (Windsor) requests?

ECUSA did not. That is clear, even to those who wrote in defence of Canterbury in the last few days. Instead of giving a straight answer to that, the Sub-group offered – in Goddard’s words – “a hermeneutics of charity” to the GC2006 decisions – to the point of reconstructing what the Convention participants decided.

Why such complicity? Those who come to Canterbury’s defence argue it is a strategy for continuing engagement with ECUSA. Sam Wells’ strategy of “over-acceptance” comes into vogue. Dan Martins even optimistically concludes that “things are still breaking our [orthodox Anglicans?] way”! The Report could serve to persuade those in ECUSA who belong to Group IV (anti-1.10 and anti-Windsor) of Bishop of Exeter’s quadrant back to Group III (pro-Windsor).
Such lines of reasoning are problematic."

the rest