Williams words, so brilliant and yet convoluted, fail to connect with ordinary people. He is wrapped up in his head; his words, when they do pour out, frustrate and confuse laity and bishop alike. Trying to understand what he means is like grasping at shadows. His mind and thoughts, though profound, are elusive. He doesn't connect. He is an endless frustration to journalists who ask "Archbishop, what exactly did you mean when you said that..."

What does it mean to listen to the experience of gays? Do we inevitably endorse their behavior if we listen long enough and hard enough to their cries for acceptance of a behavior that no church in history has ever condoned? What is the meaning of sexual sin? What IS sexual sin? Do we ever make a decision based on the clear teaching of Scripture, or should we nuance and parse the Apostle Paul till we have exegeted him to conform to our wishes and desires.

There is no doubting he is a humble man, a man who cares deeply for the church. He appears to have a deep spirituality and a contrite spirit. He has studied the Russian Orthodox Church and the faith that holds them together, yet his mind is thoroughly liberal and post-modern.

Deep down one gets the impression he is uncomfortable, perhaps even despises African Anglican evangelicalism. He visibly winces around Peter Akinola, finding his literalism offensive. Williams is a brilliant and thoughtful version of the fey Frank Griswold - infinitely better educated even though both men find their roots in Affirming Catholicism. Griswold was and is a lightweight. Williams has the gravitas Griswold always lacked.

Williams is always looking for the middle way for Anglicans to stay together, but can two walk together unless they be agreed? Griswold accused Williams of failing to show leadership at Dromantine when he was being set upon by Global South Primates over sodomy. He quietly took it. Fast forward to New Orleans. This time it is Gene Robinson who strikes out at the archbishop. Again, no reprimand.

Is it his humility that prevents Williams from fighting back and reproving Gene Robinson for his insulting blast at the Archbishop in New Orleans? Is his academic mind simply seeing this as an attempt to look for the synthesis in the situation? What does he think when bishops like Bob Duncan tell Williams to his face that the faith is under attack by liberals and revisionists in the U.S. who have no intention of backing down, and that he must decide where he will come down on the issues?

What is he really thinking? Does he feel the pain of the onslaughts and attacks on him? Does he cry out to God for the communion or is it an academic exercise that will be resolved by men and women of good will?

Some of his actions seem totally illogical. He issues invitations to Lambeth BEFORE he comes to the US and the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans. He did it before any decision had been made about whether the Episcopal Church had conformed to the demands of the Windsor Report. Is he that disingenuous that the press wouldn't notice? Now he is faced with the knowledge that a majority of his fellow Primates think the TEC has fallen short in conforming to the Windsor Report.

What will he do now?

One thing he likes to do is travel the world to build bridges with Muslims. This is rich with irony. His own house is fraught with division and schism and yet he feels compelled to make nice with a religion that treats women like dirt, practices clitoral circumcision and would no more let him near Mecca than the Pope would be caught entertaining the head of the Mormon Church.

In Singapore, Williams will discuss "Humanity in Context: Christian and Muslim perspectives on being human," which will consider how the respective religions approach matters such as care and responsibility for the environment, gender and diversity issues. As in previous years, the seminar will consist of the presentation of papers in public and separate private sessions for the participants. Lofty stuff indeed. What does it all amount to and who really cares? Will it solve the Global South's cry for moral order in the communion?

What of the souls of those in Singapore who know not Christ? Does he have a word for them? Do Muslims need to hear the salvation offered by Christ for them, or is their connection to Abraham enough to guarantee them a place at the Marriage Supper of the Lamb?

What does he think when he hears of the formation of a new ecclesial structure in Pittsburgh that everyone knows will lead inevitably to a North American Anglican province, whether he approves of it or not.

What does he think when he sees the Canadian Church coming apart at the seams with a new Anglican denomination forming even as these words are being written.

Is he having private conversations with the evangelical Archbishop Gregory Venables telling him that his actions are schismatic? Does Venables even care what the ABC thinks? Have things gone so far that his fellow Englishmen may well have gently but firmly blown him off? Does Williams see the contradiction, but some how is able to rationalize it all with the argument that we are all somehow caught up in the greater unity of God that we cannot perceive because we are only human? One can almost hear him say, "Let us give the Spirit more time".

Does he really think he can hold it together when push comes to shove, when one Primate after another is now saying they won't attend Lambeth next year?

On one of these few occasions when he was dogmatic, I asked him point blank would he postpone Lambeth at the request of Archbishop Akinola to allow for a cooling off period for the whole communion. His answer was a clear and decisive no. Why not compromise? He had little to lose, except money, and the TEC has plenty of that.

Does he see Lambeth as a tool for unity with the focus on prayer with nothing about sodomy on the agenda? Is he naive to think that the liberals won't use the occasion to grasp the levers of power and together with the Anglican Consultative Council reverse Lambeth 1:10? Does he believe prayer will simply resolve it all as God sweeps in to quell the theological divisions amongst us, as we move into the silence of God?

There are so many contradictions. He said he would never allow his private views on homosexuality to conflict with the Communion's public (orthodox) position, but he holds a private Eucharist for non-celibate homosexuals. He angers the Global South one month and homosexuals and lesbians the next, while he wavers backwards and forwards, his Hegelian mind desperately looking for a synthesis to the Anglican universe he controls.

What must he be thinking when four TEC bishops go to Rome, with more going to CANA, AMiA and Uganda on an almost monthly basis? Can he not read the theological tea leaves?

Whether he likes it or not, the Anglican Communion is on the move, and it is away from unity. One would have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to see it. It will all come undone on his watch. He cannot avoid that. His legacy will be one of defeat. He will have no one to blame but himself. He can try and blame narrow-minded conservatives, if he wishes, but it will do him no good. In the long run, history is always on the side of truth, not innovation.

As the communion moves towards schism and fragmentation, his defeat will be all the more ignominious. In the end, he will have no option but to look in the mirror and acknowledge the awful truth that he could not compromise on the faith once delivered for all to the saints without paying for it. He will learn that he is on the wrong side of history and the Anglican Communion crashed and burned because he did not have the faith or strength to hold it together. This will be his sad legacy even as the beginnings of a new reformation of global orthodoxy is emerging around the world.

END