The reactions and responses have begun. I do not intend to attempt to post all such responses – go to Thanking Anglicans or Titusonenine for that.
Ruth Gledhill, The Times Religion Correspondent. I love the picture posted on her entry – a nuclear mushroom cloud behind Canterbury Cathedral(?).

“‘Chilling,’ is how Kendall Harmon described it, warning that schism now was even closer than before.”

And

“The members of the committee set up to look at this under the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams were the Archbishop of Central Africa Bernard Malango, the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan (one of three Primates not in Tanzania), Chancellor Philippa Amable, Province of West Africa and Canon Elizabeth Paver of the Church of England. It is interesting that Elizabeth Paver is a highly-respected General Synod member but extremely orthodox and an opponent even of the ordination of women priests. If she is on the group and the group has decreed that TEC has passed muster, I reckon that is pretty significant.” (emphasis mine)

Here is the sub-committee’s report on their evaluation of TEC’s response to The Windsor Report during the 75th General Convention in Columbus, Ohio this past summer.
Major points:
On the expression of regret:

“The group was unsure how these words should be understood. On the one hand, there does not seem to be any admission of the fact that the action of consenting to the particular election at the centre of this dispute was in itself blameworthy. On the other, there is the use of the strong language of “apology” and the request for “forgiveness”. These words are not lightly offered, and should not be lightly received. Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates.”

On the Election of Bishops living in situations contrary to Lambeth 1.10:

“The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates.”

On Public Rites of Same-sex Blessings:

“It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter. The Primates in their statement of March 2003 did admit that there could be “a breadth of private response to individual pastoral care”, but it is clear that the authorisation by any one bishop, diocese or Province, of any public Rite of Blessing, or permission to develop or use such a rite, would go against the standard of teaching to which the Communion as a whole has indicated that it is bound. We do not see how bishops who continue to act in a way which diverges from the common life of the Communion can be fully incorporated into its ongoing life. This is therefore a question which needs to be addressed urgently by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church.”

From what I’ve been reading over the last several months, I don’t think many “reasserters” will be happy with this document. We will have to wait and see what they say.
A note of caution:

“The Group feels that the reality of the change of direction that some see in the resolutions of the General Convention can only be tested however by the way in which the Episcopal Church lives out these resolutions. “

This is very true! What, in fact, will we do?
This is a killer for so many:

“It is also clear that it is not only those who have expressed their strong disassociation from the decisions of the 74th General Convention in 2003 who have a commitment to the life of the Communion.”

So many have been saying so strongly that the leadership of TEC has already removed itself from the A.C. and that the 75th General Convention spoke loudly that this Church no longer wishes to remain in the communion. The sub-committee recognizes that this is simply not the case.
In the Afterward, is this referencing those provinces and those primates who are trespassing on provincial and diocesan boundaries as they’ve attempted to set up their own jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada?

“We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. This report has been concerned with the response by the Episcopal Church to that Report. We understand that the Anglican Church of Canada is in the process of preparing its response. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far.”

Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina and progenitor of Titusonenine, has posted what he would say to the Primates in Tanzania if he were there. You can read it on T19 or over at Stand Firm. The ‘comments’ are not working properly at T19, so Kendall suggests going over to Stand Firm.
There are two points with which I must disagree with Kendall, at least as I interpret his intentions within his essay. These two points are not about theology or moral opinion regarding homosexuality or Scriptural interpretation, but about what we are doing. (First of all, I want to concede that Kendall’s mental acuity is far above mine, and he is far more “in the know” than I am.)
1. He attempts to establish that the official theological teaching and position of the Anglican Communion beyond the Creeds and the First Four Ecumenical Councils resides in the Lambeth Conference of Anglican Bishops. He implies, and believes I think, that the resolutions passed at Lambeth conferences establish the official teaching of the Anglican Communion.
2. He attempts to establish that all provinces, really all Anglican ecclesiastical entities, are bound to obey the opinions of the bishops reflected by majority vote in the final Lambeth resolutions. The implication is that the bishops are now bound to uphold and enforce those resolutions despite their own personal positions.
My response is that it is unAnglican to view Lambeth as a body that establishes the official teaching of the Communion. Lambeth has never been a Magisterium, as in the Roman Church. In addition, according to my understanding it has never been the expectation that all resolutions of Lambeth are “gospel” and must be obeyed by all Anglicans.
Finally, if the “reasserters” are rebelling against the ecclesial structures of TEC and against majority votes of TEC’s General Conventions made by bishops, clergy, and laity in order to protect a minority of “truly faithful” against abuse by the majority, then why is it wrong for TEC or the ACofC to rebel against Lambeth resolutions in order to protect the minority of gay people against abuse by the majority across the Communion, particularly in places like Nigeria? If rebellion is the rule of the day, then the U.S. and Canadian churches (as well as many other provinces) “rebellion” against Lambeth should be permitted for the sake of consistency. If “truth” is established by a majority vote (like some suggest of bishops at Lambeth), then why is “truth” not established by a majority vote within TEC’s General Conventions – the governing body that sets policy and doctrine for TEC? (“truth” with a little “t”, not “Truth”)
Well, there is such a thing as a “tyranny of the majority,” and I’ve seen it expressed against conservatives in TEC and now I’m seeing it expressed against TEC and ACoC by the majority within the Communion. Do we really want these kinds of things settled by a majority vote? There is a reason why we do not live in a pure democracy in the U.S.!
Former Archbishop of Canterbury Carey states:

“And that is the true purpose of Lambeth Conference. It represents a pause, a staging post, where we are refreshed in spirit (and body and mind too, I hope) for the next stage of our journey. It marks a stage in the life of our Communion. And it marks a stage in our own personal journeys. So, what are the things that will you take out into the next stage of your own journey, your Diocese’s journey and your Province’s journey?
I hope you will take a keen awareness that you are not alone. You belong to a great family of God, and here you have come face to face with brothers and sisters from all over the world as we have spoken, prayed, eaten and worshipped together in the intimacy of that family.”

(from Carey’s final sermon at the last Lambeth)
Martin Smith SSJE, in a talk reporting on the last Lambeth Conference given to the monastery at Cambridge:

” Most of you know that the Lambeth Conferences are gatherings of the bishops of the Anglican Communion summoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury every ten years since the 1860s. The name derives from Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop’s London residence, where they used to meet. The Conferences now take place in Canterbury. The purpose of the Conferences is for consultation. The bishops cannot legislate for the Anglican Communion or override the autonomy of the provinces. Any teaching or conclusions passed by the assembly has only an advisory character. The purpose of the Conferences has been to provide a means for periodic stocktaking of the evolving condition of world-wide Anglicanism. The reports that have been issued over the years have seldom had any earthshaking impact but they have supplied every decade current models of Anglican theological reflection so that Anglicans and Christians of other traditions can get a handle on our style of Christian witness.
“I was present not only as support for Bishop Tom Shaw SSJE, as the head of his monastic household, but as a member of the team of chaplains who were available to the conference pastorally and to help practically with the liturgies.”

(Anglicans Online)
Lambeth is a time when the Bishops of the Communion gather for fellowship and to work out among themselves issues and concerns realized around the Communion. They do express their common mind, established by majority vote in a democratic fashion. There are not unanimous opinions/votes held by and agreed to by all bishops.
It is unAnglican to demand that Lambeth is a body given authority to establish the official teaching of the Communion. Lambeth is not an Anglican Magisterium, or at least it has never been. There are those who want to make it so. The only reason the attempt to establish Lambeth to be such an authority is because of convenience – they agree with Lambeth 1.10 (or at least the first part of it). If the vote had been different or if a couple of the sections were missing, they would not be appealing to Lambeth as an authority. And, do not be mistaken, if in the future the tide turns and by majority vote Lambeth begins to vote against them, they will repudiate Lambeth!
At this point and for the purposes of my response to Kendall, this has nothing to do with whether the individual points in Lambeth 1.10 are agreed to or not, my response is about what we are attempting to make the Communion to be and what it has always been. They are two different things.
Finally, as I am understanding Kendall, he is trying to establish that all Anglican ecclesiastical bodies are required to obey Lambeth resolutions. Again, this has never been the case. Lambeth may well express the “mind of the Communion,” but really it expressed the minds of the bishops assembled. Now, yes, we are a Catholic church and the bishops are the points of unity, but we are a Reformed Catholic church, and the responsibility of determining what the Communion is and what it believes and does has never rested with the Bishops only, particularly with the Primates. Individual provinces may have an authority structure that rests all decisions with the bishops, and that is their right as Anglicans, but Communion wide it has never been.
Again, I think those who are demanding ejection from the Communion of the American and Canadian churches if they don’t repudiate what they have done are attempting to establish the decisions of primates and bishops as the final authority out of convenience – the numbers are on their side. If the votes go a different way in Tanzania or subsequence international meetings, they will not abide by those decisions. Their convictions are true, and I can respect them! As an Anglican, however, I cannot accept their attempt to force their perspective upon everyone else and punish those who offer resistance.
What it really does come down to, in my opinion, is a rebellion against those who have decided that the Tradition needs to rethink the issue of homosexuality. They are striving mightily to maintain the Tradition as it is – as what they believe is God’s will.
Some places have gone too far too quickly in pushing the issue or acting prematurely in a typically unilateral and arrogant American way, in my opinion. But, the reaction of those who are opposed to all same-sex relationships, period, are going far to far in their attempts to make the Anglican Communion into something that it has never been. The purpose is to enforce their particular theological perspective(s) and Scriptural interpretation(s), particularly concerning the homosexual issue.