Dear sionnsar,
Who ultimately gets to make the call?
Is this something where the Presiding Bishop has the final authority to decide the question?
Or is there some voting body that can bind the ECUSA to send, or fail to send, full delegations?
Do you think this group represents the power in the ECUSA, or are they wishfully thinking?
It's hard for me to imagine that the Global South Primates would react well to the ECUSA sending a full delegation to the ACC.
What do you think?
sitetest
I'm afraid I have no idea who makes the decision. They can always "send a delegation," but I rather suspect Griswold or somebody else (at 815) has to supply, for example, an official list of delegates in order for them to be received as legitimate delegates when they arrive. Having no list is problematic, and I cannot imagine the offices at Lambeth trying to deal with lists arriving from every single diocese around the world. (I'm basing this guess on personal experience with an international committee where we operate by such rules; if you aren't on the list, you're an observer.)
If a list is required and none is sent, then those who go are just wasting time & money. Unless they're planning on demonstrating outside.
I'd have to go back to see exactly how the matter was worded, but I believe the communique asked ECUSA to not send a delegation, but instead to provide explanation for their actions. As I recall, the Primates' meeting doesn't have the power to actually deny ECUSA's attendance at the ACC.
So my guess is that it's Griswold's call, directly or indirectly, whether a delegation goes. Groups like the PEP (and they're not the first to talk about going regardless) will be pressuring him hard to send them; Williams will be pressuring him hard not to send them.
It won't sit well with the Global South if they go. Worse if they don't come with the requested explanation.