To return to later:
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Sermon at York Minster (describe as “the heavy yoke of self-justification“)
Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks’s address to the Lambeth Conference:
– Text
– Video
Alan Jacobs has a good thing to say about the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Alan has joined a breakaway Anglican church, rather than slogging through Anglicanism’s (or The Episcopal Church’s) problems, and he describes why. I fully understand his reasons. Yet, both of us will look in some way to the See of Canterbury as one of our loci of identity. He writes of Rowan Williams:

But in these past few days I have been wondering whether there might be a method in Rowan’s madness — or rather in God’s. Might it be possible that while Rowan is most certainly not the kind of leader we want, he is precisely the kind we need? That his leadership is not that of a Churchill but rather a Desert Father? We want decision, action, clearly set plans; Rowan offers prayer, meditation, stillness, silence. He models those disciplines for us, and in so doing (silently) commends them… What if that is what we Anglicans actually need? What if our desire for decision and action is actually distracting us from what the Lord God is calling us to do and be?

A very good question!
I think I am coming to a place of, words fail me – something, in all the troubles of this Church. Men will do all manner of things in their high minded certitude that result in dissolution, if not destruction. We can’t help it, really, because self-centered self-righteousness has gotten into our bones. There is, of course, a way out or over this particular human proclivity, but few will take up the cure.
So, for me, within the worldly realm and within the Church structures, I will look to the See of Canterbury as a locus of my identify as an Anglican Christian, regardless of what high-mined men and women decide they must do. If others want to do the same, great. If we don’t agree on most things, so be it. If they want to yell at me and call me names or cast me into outer darkness, then so be it. I will not return the favor (but I reserve the right to critique). I do think Rowan is a good person in this office to look to.
As Julian might say, “All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

Over at SARX, there is a good post the touches on Anglicans, the Orthodox (as in Eastern Orthodox), and the idea that if we look at the world of Orthodoxy, we realize that our Anglican problems are not the one problems.
A couple take-away sentences:

Bishop Alan posted a joke about Episcopalians being a disorganised religion and I noted in my reply that, in fact, many Orthodox (converts, mostly) are horrified to realise exactly how disorganised Orthodoxy is… Add to that infighting over “modernism” and “traditionalism” as well as ecumenism (which means, in the states, just accepting the baptism of other churches, while in some other locations it means inter-communion and intermarriage) you end up with a picture of Messy that far outstrips or, maybe, exactly parallels Anglicanism.

Will we end up like the Eastern Orthodox, will we end up like the Roman Catholics, or will we remain distinctly Anglican?
I want to remain Anglican, frankly. Let those who want a pope cross the Tiber, let those who want the Orthodox model go over to Constantinople, but why do they insist that Anglicans cannot or should not remain, well, Anglican?