Update: Check the comments for the full article from the Church Times (thanks, Anon!) And the interview was done before the Synod vote - so that clears up that question.
Original: From the Church Times [boldface mine]:
THE Archbishop of Canterbury was in defiant mood this week, as he spoke of his hopes for the Lambeth Conference. He was positive about its strong mission agenda, which he believes should put into perspective the debate about sexuality.
In an interview for this paper, Dr Williams admits to feeling “frustrated”, and even to having “kicked the furniture a bit over the last few weeks”. But he is clear in his analysis that GAFCON (News, 4 July) was not just about the biblical interpretation. “The vast majority of Anglican theologians and Anglican leaders have an absolutely clear commitment to the authority of scripture in the way we always have,” he says. Rather: “There are major ethical and cultural anxieties about sexual ethics here.”
He affirms the Anglican approach as being able to encompass plurality, without any one view undermining the basis of scriptural authority.
Huh? "without any one view undermining the basis of scriptural authority" - so there can never be heresy or even orthodoxy since no one view can be taken as authoritative?
In the long term, the Anglican Communion would survive, he argues. “We may be less obviously at one for a few years, but that doesn’t let us off the obligation to keep listening to each other.” The model of diffused authority was part of the essence of Anglicanism: “If we did have a tight central model, we would cease to be the kind of Church we have always set out to be.”
The Church does, however, need to keep up to date with the new speed of global communications: “When something which happens in one province is instantly around the world, you have to go for a more coherent structure.”. . .
What does that mean - "coherent structure"? Sounds like a tighter central model to me. Does he mean that the church needs to keep a tighter control on what gets out to those in the pews? Guess those evil bloggers are at it again - ruining a perfectly good church by letting everyone know what's going on.
Read it all. I would love to see the interview transcript here. Was this done before the Synod vote since there seems to be no reference to that here. A very innocuous interview with nothing new and little clarity, but I'm not sure if that's the archbishop's fault or the reporter's.
Actually, I guess the entire interview is posted, but you need to be a subscriber, which I am not, so if anyone else posts this, I will link to it.