I hope someone more in the know than I will supply thumbnail sketches of these individuals. Some, like ++Drexel-Gomez, and Ephraim Radner, etc., I know of, but many I do not. A comprehensive list would be helpful in evaluating any report.

I hope that the two representatives of the USA can keep errors about TEC and its polity out of whatever report results. I do not have much confidence in recommendations that are based on misinformation, e.g., Windsor, and some subsequent publications, refer to +Gene being 'appointed' to his see.

Perhaps they can supply the other members with current copies of TEC's Consitution and Canons so that the other members will have time to read, mark, and inwardly digest them. Oh - and a copy of the BCP, perhaps with markers set at our Baptismal Covenant. You know - respect the dignity of every human being - stuff like that.

As a Southern African Anglican I thoguht I better share with you what I know about our board member
Nomfundo Walaza of the Anglican Church in Southern Africa is a qualified Clinical Psychologist who completed her training at the University of Cape Town (UCT). She earned a Bachelor of Social Science (B Soc Sci) degree in Sociology and Psychology in 1986, completed a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) in Psychology a year later, and obtained a Masters degree in Clinical Psychology from UCT in 1991.

Nomfundo worked at Valkenberg Psychiatric Hospital from January 1990 to July 1994. Nomfundo joined the Trauma Centre for Survivors of Violence and Torture in August 1994, as the co-ordinator of the Urban Violence project. She was appointed as the Director of the Trauma Centre in September 1996 where she worked until 2005.

Nomfundo has been lecturing and doing consultative work since leaving the Trauma Centre.
[from the Open Society Foundation website]

She is also a Trustee of the Desmond Tutu Peace Trust (S.A.): which includes such names as
Adv. Dumisa Ntsebeza - Chairman [was on the TRC]; Mrs. Pam Golding - [Real Estate Agent in Cape Town]; Mr. Saki Macozoma - [top business man in SA]; Prof. Njabulo S. Ndebele [Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cape Town]; The Most Revd. Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane ; Mr. Cyril Ramaposa another top businessman; Mr. Tokyo Sexwale [being suggested as a success for President Thabo Mbeki] Dr. Franklin Sonn [former Ambassador to the USA] etc etc

Trying to find out about her Anglican Church affiliations but it is still 'Summer Holidays' in Cape Town, South Africa

Wot, no Canadians?

And who of those on the list represents LGBT people – those at the center of the cyclone?

Hmmm -- well, five of the twelve are from provinces whose primates refused to attend a Communion service because ++Frank Griswold was present & I have never been able to finish any work by Ephraim Radner (who always seems to me to be on the verge of tears).

I can't say that I find it at all encouraging (but this is no surprise ever since ++Rowan refused to reconsider having as chair of the drafting committee one of the primates who wants to expell The Episcopal Church from the WWAC).

One of the sad things has been to hear from some of the members of the Eames Commission who were secretly very unhappy with the Windsor Report that they signed off because there was no more time and they "had to come up with something." If this design group comes up with anything at all, it is likely to be the same story. Then a suggestion will be treated as a requirement & the same arguments will pass back and forth yet again. If anyone were listening, it might not be so depressing.

Based on Dr Radner's interview with David Virtue below, I am skeptical as to whether he can "keep errors about TEC and its polity out of whatever report results."

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.org/articles/radnerinterview.htm

I have to wonder how representative this group that the ABC has chosen is. perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Ditto, maybe, for accurate documentation of all other worldwide Anglican Communion provincial differences that can conceivably affect what and how the emergent covenant should take shape.

Maybe, TEC ought to consider a moratorium on its relations with the Anglican Communion until ++Rowan Cantuar steps down. ++Rowan has shown himself a partisan with little respect for TEC's Constitution and Canons.

++Rowan's Panel of Reference has shown its hand, overturning the 1997 non-discrimination canon, giving women equal access to the ordination process. By what constitutional authority did the Panel even presume to support Bp. Iker's misogynist stance? The Panel was even confused over how a TEC diocese can claim membership in the AC. Last time I read TEC's polity, it is through its membership in General Convention, TEC still being a constituent member, definitely not through separating itself from TEC's elected leadership!

I concur with John Henry above; time for TEC to go on strike.

It's one thing to try to keep open a "dialogue" with other members of the Communion, but of course there's no real "dialogue" in the offing, and hasn't been since this whole fracas began. We are dealing with people who've openly said they won't discuss the matter; more, we're dealing with people who openly support legislation that imprisons gay people.

I suppose that's one way to avoid having to listen and deal with us. But that's more than enough, now.

My attention is elsewhere today on more domestic issues, but what I found fascinating here was the announcement that this group are to meet in the next few weeks and get a preliminary report to the Primates Meeting next month!

That is something approaching haste!

The significance however cannot be missed. The next Primates Group does represent something of an obstacle for Rowan Williams and this preliminary report must offer him a way of holding on to a situation that he admits is spinning out of his control.

There is already much criticism of the membership of the core panel chosen to draft this Covenant, I appreciate their problems and understand their objections, but no group will find this task easy and those now chosen will have a huge problems to confront..

Haste could be their undoing, lack of haste could also be their undoing, there is no safe space now in the Anglican Communion.

Bishop Iker in a Lving Church Interview: "(PB Schori's) statement strikes me as something carefully crafted to continue to deny the respect that should be afforded to persons who hold to our position. It is a long way from being commending. I see nothing positive in it at all. The really disturbing thing for her to read in the report must have been the recommendation that 'no diocese or parish should be compelled to accept the ministry of word or sacrament from an ordained woman.' That would include her."

The Panel of Reference has opened up pendora's box. What next? The removal from office of PB Schori because she is a female, whose orders, in Jack Leo Iker's view, are null and void? Bishop Iker did ask the ABC (and the Panel) for ALPO the day after PB Schori's lawful election by both Houses of General Convention.

Hasn't the General Synod of the CofE taken the initial steps toward opening the possibility of women bishops? Will that decision be vacated by the ABC's Panel?

Will the Covenant Design Group create a Curia chaired by the ABC, claiming the right to over-ride the decisions of provincial synods/conventions? If so, ++Rowan Cantuar will go down in history as the ABC who broke all the china - very much in the same way as President George W, who, trying to outdo "Daddy George" (41), rushed into an ill-conceived pre-emptive war against Saddam's Iraq, proudly proclaiming after the fall of Baghdad: "Mission Accomplished!"

Martin rightly points out that it is only a few weeks before February. There is no way these people can put together a good paper in that time, certainly no way there is going to be good consultation.

Again, undue haste is being applied. Is this the people who tried to do a "fait accompli" covenant that failed now trying to get another group to write a paper and present that as a "fait accompli"?

I shudder to think that some cobbled together thing in the last few weeks before a global primates meeting might be decreed "the document" and quoted as "divinely inspired", all because there was "proper consultation"? I do hope the people on the committee have the good sense not to allow themselves to be used as stamps on other peoples' power plays.

Pragmatically, the best thing they could do is a discussion paper with the merits and risks of various strategies itemised and a recommended plan of action for how a proper consultation could be done. If they were to come up with a model for how consultation was to be done, that could then be discussed and agreed and there would be a way forward. At the moment there is no game plan, people make up the rules as they go, and change them whenever they find themselves losing in one field and play by different rules in different locations. All very Anglican I suppose, but to then juxtapose a covenant cobbled together in a few weeks on top of that dynamic is simply ludicrous.

I would think it would be a creative, interesting and useful thing to produce three 'covenants'.

In alphabetical order : a Catholic, an Evangelical , and a Liberal 'covenant'.

I guess if pictured as concentric circles, the centre circle could be an area of agreement held in common, by all three, in some sense; and then the other circle(s) contain distincitve colours of each particular tradition.

Oh, by George (Carey?) I've got *it*...the ABC has named a NEW "Panel of Predetermined Preference" instead of the "Covenant Designed Group" as earlier reported at The Southern Global Primates Meeting (the one that excludes major "Provinces" in the Global South)...I was confabulated and dang spinned-around thar for un momento!

Dear Archbishop Gomez, please resign immediately as honorable "chairperson" and remove yourself from further acts of manipulating, coniving, excluding planning with your behind-the-scenes mischiefmaking Global South Provincial and Diocesean border-crossing ill-mannered buddies.

The LGBT Christian/Anglicans in the West Indies/Caribbean need to be loved and embraced by YOU at all levels of Church life...you've much work to do at home I've been told and "excluding" your brothers and sisters in Cristo ain't gonna make your Church grow!

Mil Gracias

Two reps from the US, and one of them is *Radner*???

[If this was to truly represent TEC perspectives, Radner could be included . . . along with ***9*** TEC progressives!]

This is pathetic. :-(

[Might as well entitle the "covenant" {snort} something like "How to make TEC Walk the Plank"!]

And who is the Revd. Dr. Kathy Grieb? [Not that it means anything, but I've never heard of her]

This commission seems to me to be encouragingly creative.

Cynthia, in the first comment, you asked for some sketches of members of the group.

I've attempted a description of the significance of Archbishop John Chew in my Church Times article on Singapore:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=178

An interesting perspective on Ephraim Radner may be found by reading his jointly authored Fulcrum article 'Human Rights, Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion: Reflections in Light of Nigeria' on:

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=167

The Revd Victor Atta-Baffoe is from Ghana, is Chair of The African Network of Institutions of Theological Education Preparing Anglicans for Ministry (ANITEPAM), is on the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, was present at the Global South Anglican Encounter in Egypt and is just completing, or has completed, his doctorate at King's College, London.

"Maybe, TEC ought to consider a moratorium on its relations with the Anglican Communion ..."

Don't worry. I think ECUSA will be non-voluntarily "moritoriumed" soon enough.

Our 1995-2005 statistical info was recently released--an 8.1% drop over ten years. There is a virus in the ECUSA body and others would be well to quarantine us.

My thoughts, such as they are, on the Covenant (a fuller version is at Preludium):

1) That the Design Group includes a number of prominent conservatives, and is chaired by one of the most prominent, should mollify conservative Anglicans. But I note that no member of the group supports schism, congregationalism, or the Network's plan for a replacement Anglican province in North America.

2) The liberals on the Covenant Design Group will no doubt block attempts to include the most extreme sorts of provisions. However, the first draft will probably be quite conservative.

3) Before the Covenant goes into effect, it will have to be adopted by each of the member Churches in the Anglican Communion. It is not going to be imposed on any. And since there are a large number of liberal and moderate member Churches, there may well be objections to the draft. I expect to hear, for example, from the Church in Wales and the Episcopal Church of Scotland.

4) Thus the Covenant, as adopted, will probably be much less conservative than the Design Group's draft.

5) The Covenant is not going to be an "Anglican Confession." It will be a procedural document, a kind of written constitution for the Anglican Communion. That means its implementation will require test cases and interpretation -- offering further possibilities for liberals.

6) A prediction: the final version of the Covenant will say that the participation of gay and lesbian people in the Church is presently "in a process of discernment."

7) Yes, it will be classic Anglican fudge -- but then so are the Thirty-Nine Articles.

As a liberal, I believe I have reason to support the Covenant process and hope other liberals will do so.

recusant, i think the virus is our own infighting as much as anything else.

This gathering can create all of the covenants they want. Until they are duly ratified by the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the US they will not apply to us.

And after the HOD was conned into passing the last act of appeasement at the last GC don't expect much more from this church. Too many of us are not going to let gays and lesbians and women clergy be denied a place in the church to placate a dying off breed of traditionalists who in one generation will be forgotten.

And we should not offer Rowan and his commissions and his friends anything more than the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed and the Chicago Lambeth Quadilateral statement. Is this not enough, Rowan? Are the creeds and the Chicago Lambeth not a clear picture for you? Will you also force us to say the conservatives are the real and true Christians (even though we disagree) to stay?

Here is a prediction. If you chase out The Episcopal Church, Anglicans in Canada, half of Australia's Anglicans, and the church in South Africa, New Zealand and Scotland, the moderates in the Church of England will flock to join a new communion that sees and serves Christ in all persons. In one generation it will have replaced the CofE.

But I suspect that any conservative covenant will also have trouble passing in England and through Parliament. What will happen, then? Will the CofE be moved to a reduced role in the communion?

The conservatives and Rowan and his Nigerian friends and his allies who were protesting against gays and lesbians outside of Westminster today will die off in a generation and deserve the place they will have earned in history alongside the old segregationists in the American south and the defenders of apartheid in S.A. Any victory that they earn will be short lived. THis covenant will be seen as a last failed attempt by the so-called traditionalists.

Dennis, please do not forget Wales.
Our bishops have already made it clear they will have none of a coercive covenant - nor will they accept a Covenant that adds to the Creeds etc ...

Dennis--

In a recent interview ++Rowan suggested that the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral was too broad -- this ignores the fact that the only times we have been able to reach out to anyone besides the Old Catholics (who have now evolved to being in the same place as TEC) is by "widening" the Quadrilateral (i.e., modifying the "historical episcopate").

So the ABC has said that he thinks the Quadrilateral is not enough (& he is demonastrably mistaken).

Recusant,
"Our 1995-2005 statistical info was recently released--an 8.1% drop over ten years."
And this proves what, exactly? That the message of TEC is not popular with a society that has bought into a Conservative Evangelical approach to Christianity? Well, that's not exactly a stinging rebuke. The style of Christianity that is growing in the US is the one that essentially believes that George Bush is annointed by God. Some of their leaders have said that God wants Bush for president. These beliefs are simply wrong, and sinful. God does note vote in any nation's elections, and America is not the Republic of God. This situation shows what is wrong with letting the world, in this case the right wing politics prevalent in American society, set the moral tone of Christian faith. It also shows how far American Evangelicalism has strayed from the Gospel. They are irrevocably tied to the world, yet accuse others of that very thing.

And Charlotte, any "covenant" that says what you say in #6 will not be acceptable to the Right Wing. Indeed, anything other than outright condemnation of gay people will be unacceptable, I fear.

These are very helpful anyalyses Chrlotte and Dennis. I am much encouraged.

Very heartening to me.

Dennis

Don't be optimistic about this dying out in a generation. The existence of homosexuals and the tensions on how best to handle them have been going on for millenia.

They will continue after this generation as well.

Our treatment and perspective of GLBTs is a good barometer of the health of our churches and broader society. When they are acknowledged as children of God and children of mothers and fathers (every child is conceived) and accorded the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, you will find healthy societies that attend to the needs of its vulnerable and take a trans-genrational perspective (i.e. thinking about sustainability and long term implications).

Where GLBTs (aka eunuchs) are shunned, persecuted and denied justice; you will see societies that are in turmoil and have no long term perspective. The theologians in the these periods have been co-opted by the establishment and forgotten the missives to revere Creation, attend to the alien in their midst, provide for the poor and ensure that societies are safe enough for children to play in the streets unmolested.

There will always be a see-saw dynamic. What is important for this generation to understand that there is an underpinning morality that helps one keep in balance the competing tensions of purity or inclusiveness, and refining or forgiving.

"3) Before the Covenant goes into effect, it will have to be adopted by each of the member Churches in the Anglican Communion. It is not going to be imposed on any."

I wish I could believe this, Charlotte.

...but as the ABC believes that the MESS that is Windsor has found "broad concensus", so I fear the same for the covenant proposal (which I see depending more upon the liberals on the drafting committee---are there any, really?---rising to BLOCK the conservative juggernaut, and not making the Griswoldian 11/03 mistake of "Signing on, to Get Along").

IF a conservative draft makes it out of the committee (moderates shoved off to a "minority report"), expect to see vast swaths of the Primatial Majority sign on INSTANTLY "if not sooner".

Then Rowan proclaims "broad concensus" and, perhaps long before GC '09, a declaration (from the Primates, "at table" sans ++KJS? Or even at Lambeth, w/ or w/o TEC's bishops?) that ANYTHING less that a full, complete, not-one-iota-changed approval by GC, is DEFINED as "walking apart." [And what Prior A said re the Quad. {sob!}]

Sorry I'm the Blackbird of Unhappiness today (perhaps, it's only Dubya's War Escalation and my *cold* talking... ;-/ )

Jim Naughton made an interesting point on the Daily Episcopalian Website, concerning the question of stewardship on the part of
ECUSA.

"This year ECUSA will contribute more than
$750,000 to maintain the Anglican Consultative Council and the Communion Office in London. The Episcopal Church contribution accounts for roughly 30 percent of the office's budget. Over the next three years our total contribution will be $2.35 million...

"My question is whether we should continue to be so generous in our support of a body that a) requested that we not exercise our voting rights at its last meeting; b) permitted the Akinola-led opposition to use our withdrawal to push through
legislation that would not have passed had we participated; c) has become increasingly curial in its functions as the Archbishop of Canterbury has pursued his plan for an Anglican Covenant and d) houses the odious Panel of Reference, created at the behest of foreign Primates eager to meddle in our affairs on behalf of those who oppose the full inclusion of gays, lesbians and women in the ministries of our Church?

"Our relationship to ABC seems to be deteriorating rapidly--witness his arm's length treatment of our PB, his unwillingness to request civility from Primates who have attacked her, and his unwillingness to pay a public visit to
any of our churches...

"If one looks at the roster of the Covenant
Design Committee released yesterday, and, even worse at the roster of those asked to comment on papers presented to the committee, it is clear
that the deck is being stacked against those who favor many of the positions our Church has arrived at through its democratic processes in
recent years...

"If one reads through the Panel of Reference’s recent attempt to pressure our Church into rewriting its
canons on women’s ordination, the threat to our self-governance is evident, as is the threat to the progress we have made toward the full inclusion of all of the baptized in the ministries of our Church...

"What I need someone to explain to me is why we are subsidizing their efforts."

I fully concur; in fact, I advocate that ECUSA declare a moratorium on its relations with the Anglican Communion until the inept ++Rowan Cantuar steps down.

>As a liberal, I believe I have reason to support the Covenant process and hope other liberals will do so.<

It won't work, because if it has the outcome you suggest (opportunities for liberals) then it won't be enough for the Reform, Anglican Mainstream, Global South (selected) wing. If they get what satisfies them, it will not be acceptable to TEC, Wales, Scotland, much of the C of E, New Zealand, South Africa, much of Australia...

I doubt it will be Covenants of Evangelical, Catholic and Liberal, as if the Liberal one is core on to which the others can add. That won't be accepted either.

There'll just be a choice of Covenants, two or three, with the Open Evangelicals in the most difficult position of choosing.

For liberals, the Covenants emerging will also be an opportunity for honesty, to put the creeds clearly as historical background documents along with the 39 Articles, to bring theological findings more to the fore, and to develop a pastoral and serving Church where belief is part of a discussion that follows on from worship. The only other function of a liberal Covenant would be to undermine covenants, that is to enhance the freedom of association.

It only took me half an hour to write such a Covenant, so no worries about rushing.

I have not utterly despaired of the Covenant process. However, I think the Covenant process will not hold together the Anglican Communion as it is now. Enough voices have stated that "we have no need of you" that "the highest level of communion possible" may turn out to be hardly communion at all.

That said, I think some sort of international communion among Anglicans is of the pleni esse of the Church, if you will; and if the Covenant process can contribute to that sort of Communion, well and good. A Covenant, in and of itself, cannot make that happen, because any covenant we can imagine so far will be unacceptable to some.

I think, whatever our misgivings, we need to still watch and wait. The work of this Convenant Committee as configured will only be part of the process, and all of us - North or South, conservative or progressive, purist or inclusivist - will have plenty of opportunity and ground in the short to mid-term to make decisions.

For starters, even before we talk about an Anglican Covenant, the boorish behavior of ++Rowan toward PB Schori and TEC has to stop. Jihm Naughton, Daily Episcopalian, quoted Lionel Deimel's essay which states:

"The Presiding Bishop should privately and politely ask the Archbishop of Canterbury for an apology for suggesting that she is present only by his sufferance. He had no right to exclude her, and to have suggested otherwise was an affront to her and to the church that she represents."

Sadly, ++Rowan panders to the bullies from the Global South and Fort Worth, TX.

Several commentators have posted references to the CofE and questioned whether a Covenant would be acceptable to us. As Established by Law, the CofE does not recognise the authority of any extra-territorial body. Lambeth Conferences, Primates' Meetings or any Communion-wide commission or organisation have no competency to determine or regulate either the doctrine or discipline of the CofE. The only authority on Earth that is recognised by the CofE is its Supreme Governor, who exercises power in all matters both spiritual and temporal. The General Synod exercises delegated power and is the only body in the world able to determine the doctrines and teachings of the Church. Even its powers are proscribed by Law, however. Statute 25 Hen. VIII c.19 (1534) is still the law of the land and clause 3 states: "No canons, constitutions or ordinances shall be made ... which shall be contrary or repugnant to the [Queen's] prerogative royal, or the customs, laws, or statutes of this realm." The CofE could only sign up to a covenant if it was dis-Established first. There is no support for this among communicant members of the Church, it would take at least ten years to accomplish, and it is inconceivable that the process could begin during the lifetime of the Queen.

THis is very helpful to have chapter and verse on the Law.

How ironic that thins I would once have railed against as unprogressive are turning out to be our salvation. Such as the Establishmnet of the C of E., and the Parson's Freehold.

I now love our Erastiansim ! So v e r y English !

"The CofE could only sign up to a covenant if it was dis-Established first. There is no support for this among communicant members of the Church, it would take at least ten years to accomplish, and it is inconceivable that the process could begin during the lifetime of the Queen."

Perhaps someone should inform the Archbishop. Then we can save many trees, much ink, and oceans of emotions.

Letter to C of E Newspaper and 'anglican' 'mainstream' and titusonenine

Bishop backs Covenant

Bishop David Evans, formerly of Peru,former General Secretary of the South American Missionary Society and former General Secretary of the Evangelical Fellowship in the Anglican Communion, with a worldwide knowledge of the Anglican Communion, has written to the Church of England Newspaper thus

Sir, I hope ongoing discussion in this country realistically keeps in mind the present situation in the Episcopal Church of the USA. I am appalled by the disintegration that is happening. The secular courts used in litigation against priests and bishops, the hounding of the orthodox, the legal squabbles over church buildings and finance etc, etc, — it is profoundly disturbing.

My understanding is that the proposed covenant is a way to prevent such a disintegration or haemorrhaging happening here. A way also that does not put further burdens on the Global South, which is doing so much to stand by orthodox brethren in the USA. Global South leaders need to spend their time and energy in their own growing provinces and dioceses and not be absorbed into our current controversies.

I’m sorry that some bishops have inadvertently focussed the debate on disunity among evangelical Anglicans. Or on the relationship between theological substance and due process. Important as these are they tend to marginalise the gravity of the present position. If there is a better and realistic way let’s discuss it, but not endlessly, because it may then be too late. Those interested in the covenant approach actually represent a very significant alliance and it is not a closed one. We owe it to the truth of the Gospel and to our Global South brethren to work out a way forward that is realistic about the present chaos and seeks to put a stop to the slippage in both doctrine (the uniqueness of Christ) and morals (marriage and homosexuality). Surely it can’t be right to marginalise or even demonise orthodoxy?

The Rt Rev David RJ Evans
Stratford-on-Avon

The Rt Rev David RJ Evans expressed concern for
"our Global South brethren"

Wot about the sistren? And (for that matter) our GS brethren and sistren who don't go along with ++Abuja?

Actually this letter just reinforces my feelings that an awful lot of COnsEvs want to claim the title 'Christian' all for themselves, and when someone within the camp chides them for this it's looked on with extreme disfavour.

It would be helpful to know why Terence Dear makes the statement he does on the covenant and disestablishment. Does he think that the Covenant will affect the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, or Royal prerogatives? There's absolutely nothing in law to prohibit the Church of England from freely associating with its ecumenical partners, its Anglican partners and signing up to voluntary agreements. It's a pretty big assumption that the Covenant will change the doctrine, teaching, structure, or discipline of the Church of England. I have no doubt that highly competent ecclesiastical lawyers will be able to advise the Covenant group as it goes about its work.

Andrew
Regardless of Terence Dear's potential argument, do you agree that such a matter would be regarded by the General Synod as "Article 8 business" and therefore would require a successful referral to diocesan synods, a majority of which would have to approve of it?

Simon I hadn't really thought about that, but you're probably right that it could come under Article 8. I suppose you could argue that it depends on the content of the covenant. But most likely it will not be a matter of bland housekeeping and will be referred to Deanery and Dioceses for approval.

People are getting ahead of themselves if they think a majority in the Church of England will not be in favour of a Covenant of some kind. It depends what kind of covenant it turns out to be.

Yes, my point (which I should have written in my earlier comment, sorry) is not so much about whether or not a majority would eventually approve a Communion-wide Covenant, but rather that the process of finding out whether that is so or not will take at least several years to achieve in the Church of England. This is not something that can be sorted out by e.g. 2008.

So it is on a similar time scale to the approval of women bishops.

Simon, I'm sure you're right that for the C of E (and other provinces of the AC) it's not just a matter of rubber-stamping a covenant. It will require much more discussion. In terms of Synodical time however this sort of thing can be done in a year. Let's say it comes to Synod 'to take note' and referral to the dioceses in the February sessions. Unless I'm misunderstanding the process, surely it can come back to Synod at the latest by the following February for 'final approval'? In contrast the women bishops legislation will go through lengthy processes of revision, as well as consultation and that will take several years before it reaches the stage of needing Parliamentary approval.