This is why I don't understand this, from Graham Kings:
It is encouraging to learn that planners of the Lambeth Conference are considering how to discuss positively in Canterbury some of the concerns which may emanate from GAFCON.
I would not regard it as encouraging at all - if it turns out to be anything like the Advent Letter in its double lockdown against diversity. The best thing to do with GAFCON is let it overreach itself compared with its overbearing rhetoric.
He thinks the metaphor of Dunkirk is appropriate not for the heroism of rescue and bringing home, because of the mess and chaos it actually involved.
Later on he makes this claim:
The Communion has come of age. The Archiepiscopate of Rowan Williams is anything but dull and again we are in a period of reshaping the Anglican Communion. Reshaping is much better than splitting. It seems to me that GAFCON is about splitting and Lambeth is about reshaping.
To say that it is anything but dull is an understatement. It is more of a disaster: that again, recently, another Anglican Church (Brazil) rejected the need for a Covenant, and it simply will be rejected by too many Churches. Who wants the Anglican Communion reshaping anyway? Rather than centralise, Anglican Churches should revisit the Eastern autocephalous model, to live and let live regarding which Anglican Churches recognise which other Churches, and be less worried about competition as by GAFCON (and see it likely overreach itself). Anglican Churches are sensitive to local culture, and that's where it matters: boundary crossers can only appeal in the west to New Puritans. They will be a small sect, if they separate.
After Dunkirk came a period of watch, of overstretching over there, and then taking back. Sometimes conflict has to be faced, and was ever in the world of Churches.
Anyway, so what about religious bureaucracies: I suggest we start to focus on people themselves and what is to be valued about them, and how they might come together in diversity to inherit the riches of traditions and interpret anew.