He lashed out at Dr. Williams, accusing him of aiding and abetting "those who would destroy our Church" and said he hadn't gotten the courage of his convictions to come to the U.S. personally and confront those with whom he now allegedly disagrees.

Wrote Marshall: "He doesn't have to receive communion. He doesn't have to eat or hang out with us. He certainly ought to meet us face-to-face and accept accountability for his breathtaking words and actions. But before we get ready for life alone, we deserve to hear from him, in the room with us, an explanation of his distance and intentions."

"This distance, confusion, and triangulation ought not to be. One of the basics of episcopal - or parish - pastoral care is that one gets with and stays as close as possible to those who may be seen to be problematic. The Pope went to Turkey. Can the Archbishop of Canterbury not come to meet us just once at a regular or special meeting in any city he would care to name?"

Bishop Marshall, a liberal on sexuality issues, (he has written a book extolling lesbian love), but orthodox on other matters of the faith, says Williams has made a "laughing stock" of the U.S. church over the gay issue.

In his personal attack on Williams he accuses the world Anglican leader of "shunning" liberal British bishops while meeting with orthodox American bishops such as Network Moderator Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh.

Marshall likened the sexuality battles currently being fought over in the church to those of race and slavery and he also accuses the Archbishop of appointing a "virtual lynch mob" to draft a new unity document, or covenant, intended to avert schism.

He describes this as tantamount to turning the Anglican fellowship into a "curial bureaucracy" using tactics reminiscent of "the great and oppressive Colonizer."

He also compares the Archbishop to US leaders during the Vietnam era, arguing that just because Dr Williams is "smart", it does not mean he is right.

Marshall, writing with what he describes as "regret and trembling", says he is not asking Dr. Williams to agree with him, even if the actions of the U.S. church were inspired by some of Dr Williams' own teachings when he was a more liberal academic.

Marshall's words reflect a growing frustration with Dr. Williams by a number of American liberal and revisionist bishops who believe he is succumbing to American fundamentalist bishops as well as alleged homophobic African archbishops particularly Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola.

Bishop Marshall said he was particularly concerned with Dr. Williams' remarks following the attack on 911 when he was in New York City, echoing those of Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold that it was Western attitudes towards Islam, not Islamic hatred of the West that brought on the attacks, deeply offending thousands of Episcopalians.

Wrote Marshall: "People in my own diocese who lost loved ones in that attack have never recovered from the insensitive academic speculation of their galactic leader asking those covered in blood, ashes and strewn body parts to reflect on the bombers and 'why they hate' the US."

Marshall said the remarks of Rowan Williams following 911, were "disastrously insensitive."

At that time Griswold rushed to judgment blaming American foreign policy for the 911 attack, and was supported in his assertions by Rowan Williams.

Bishop Marshall's statement was circulated at a meeting of the TEC House of Bishops in Texas recently at the same time Dr. Williams joined the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, and other Church of England bishops for their annual January meeting in Leeds, and was clearly designed to publicly embarrass him.

The timing of Bishop Marshall's rip is interesting in light of the upcoming meeting of Primates next month in Tanzania.

VOL has learned that a document is being prepared by a group of American and British theologians highly critical of Dr. Williams theology that will be released on January 31, just two weeks before the Primates meet in Dar es Salaam.

The crisis in the communion has been building steadily since openly homoerotic V. Gene Robinson was consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, an act that then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold agreed he would not do and then proceeded to do. A number of Primates have already told VOL that while they will show hospitality to Mrs. Schori (it is the African way) when she comes, once the agenda has been agreed upon, one should not necessarily guarantee that they will be seated with her. VOL has also learned that, following what happened at Dromantine, the orthodox arch bishops will not be in Eucharistic fellowship with Mrs. Schori.

There is also growing concern by orthodox Global South Primates that Dr. Williams, who is liberal on gay issues because of his friendship with Jeffrey John, is himself in danger of ostracism even though he seems to have distanced himself from his earlier pro-gay views, showing more sympathy for a more orthodox viewpoint on pansexuality. He is less Hegelian in his thinking, said one observer of Williams, though he has not publicly or privately repudiated his views in his essay, "The Body's Grace" which argued for homosexual acceptance.

A Lambeth Palace spokesman told London Times Religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill that "The Archbishop of Canterbury has already said there is no aspect of this debate which is pain-free. Just because the liberal voice is not all that often heard in complaint does not mean to say that they do not feel this pain just as acutely."

END