successive archbishops of canterbury have always prioritised preserving the unity of the worldwide anglican communiond that communion. were they right to hold onto that until the church is ready to take that step together? there's an argument for that, clearly. it is this duality thing again. if your primary value is institutional unity, if you prize unity above said justice, you will do that. and honourable men and horrible men have done that. i can respect that. but if that's all you have, if you just have institutional unity, if you don't have maverick people saying "you shouldn't be doing that — you shouldn't be penalising gay people and women," that's called the prophetic tradition in christianity. there are three classic rules in hebrew religion — profit, priest, and king. king's rule, priestsjustify the rule with god anointing, it is always the prophets, the awkward squad, who come along and say "that's wrong." if you purge the prophetic element of the church, you purge its cleansing element. it's probably not a good idea to make prophets, archbishops or even bishops, which is probably... i wa