“A covenant would set out the 'house rules”

Oh, this dysfunctional family imagery!

“a well-written covenant would clarify the identity and mission of the churches of 'or in association with' the Anglican Communion”

The problem is not a want of “covenants”. There is the Bible in various versions, short and long; there are the XXXIX Articles; a host of Books of Common Prayer; the Lambeth-Chicago Quadrilateral, and so on and so forth.

The trouble comes when differing and incompatible interpretations held by different strands within the Anglican churches confront each other - or, rather, when anachronistic and allegoric late-modern interpretations proclaiming themselves the only true and narrow Christendom ever, are confronted with the broad Tradition of the Church.

Well, I actually agree with Göran on one point! That suitable covenants exist. These have the welcome advantage of historical authority and distance from the current problems. In particular I think a mildly recontextualized form of the thirty-nine articles might well do the trick to sort out inter-Anglican relationships.

If I were a non-liberal Primate I would be thinking that the draft covenant seems much too relative - basing authority in certain individuals and councils rather than Christ's teachings and Holy Scripture; and aiming for 'communion' with each other rather than with God. Much too humanistic... and doomed to perpetuate the problems!

I must admit that I have never been happy with "Covenant" theology -- those of the Anglican family who enthuse about it always end up leaving -- I am happy with the Quadrilateral & mutual respect among those who differ in adiaphora (not "making windows into men's souls") -- sadly, I feel increasingly like a dinosaur in contempoary Anglicanism.

As projected it is unacceptable, period, full stop.

In an organization which has *not* been run by "majority rule" (e.g., as the AC hasn't been), a majority cannot suddenly RULE that it *is* now a "majority rule" organization.

The AC has been constituted by the "bonds of affection" (aka a "defacto consensus" . . . aka "showing up"!). ANY CHANGE to that unofficial constitution, can only occur now, through an EXPLICIT CONSENSUS. Unanimity. Period. Any province/church which "shows up" can BLOCK any change (change coerced *without* achieving a consensus, would then be properly described as a "coup")

Five years to a Covenant? Try five millenia...

Yet another compromise that no-one will agree with.

There is no way of bridging the gap.