Another inconvenient fact at this time concerns the question of whether or not the primates represent their respective churches.
Fact: no one anywhere in the Anglican world denies that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori represents the overwhelming majority of her church, TEC. (Some of us would go much further and say that she superbly represents her church, to the point of all but being a living embodiment of its values and virtues).
Fact: some commentators in the Anglican world deny that primates by virtue of their office are representative of their respective churches. Despite processes of election and appointment in order to secure fit and articulate bishops for churches, and further processes by which those bishops (if not bishops, clergy and laity) choose one from their number to be their primate (exceptions, England where the crown decides; and ACANZP, my church, where we choose three), any representative connection between church and primate is denied by these commentators.
Are the commentators right? If so, is PB Jefferts Schori the exception to their ruling?
Is there any just, fair and true understanding in the denial of representativeness? Is it all possible that we are seeing the expression of bias and prejudice over rationality?
In this case the bias is this: 'primate in favour of TEC's innovations = good person, obviously representative of their church' but 'primate not in favour of TEC's innovations = doubtful person (ask question, are they bigoted, homophobic?), obviously unrepresentative of their church.'