And a follow up comment

It would seem that the main retrospective justification (if not the reason itself)  for the previously unimaginable change of direction of Anglican theology and ecclesiology over the last few decades has been a laudable and essential desire to communicate more effectively with the modern world. In fact, this justification is regularly trotted out by those who seek change whenever the burning 'issues of the day' are debated among us.
I have only one observation: it's not working. The current, theologically and ethically liberal, face of Anglicanism is no better - in fact, perhaps far less assured - in talking the language understood by the people (and I don't mean by that merely echoing the values and attitudes of the new elites - the 'chattering professional classes' on the media and elsewhere) than the traditional, 'outmoded' (so-called) proclamation of the faith on the ground where it is most effective...

I've even heard it said by those who should know better that it is the very opposition of traditionalists - catholic or evangelical - which has caused - and certainly exacerbated - the evident  and growing gulf of understanding and sympathy which exists between ourselves and, for want of a better term, 'the world' - hence, no doubt,  the gadarene rush to rid our western provinces of the awkward squad who will insist on asking those inconvenient questions about Anglican and Christian identity when we should, in the Prime Minister's now notorious phrase, simply shut up and 'get with the programme.' 
So, just dump the 'bigots' and we'll be fine - at least one unnecessary obstacle to better communication with modern society and culture will be removed. I look forward to seeing the promised queues outside our churches on Sundays - as, indeed,  I have since this process began.
My female friends tell me that putting one's one's foot down on the accelerator is a very male response to taking a wrong turning - perhaps our leaders should be told .....

But again, to return to the previous post: what price ecumenism when what will be proclaimed when the current agenda of wild experimentation has been completed will, if present trends continue, turn out to have a somewhat tenuous relationship with the Gospel as it has been believed? And what price communication without the means of conversion and transformation?