I have previously described the entire Covenant process as a Primatial power grab - and I have yet to see any reason for me to re-evaluate this conclusion.

As such, it is interesting to note the breadth of concern among our bishops about the past effect of the Primates on the health of the Communion.

The question asked is: "How well do you feel that the formal Instruments of Communion have served our common life so far?" The question is asked regaring each of the Instruments (Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council, Primates Meeting). The data following refers only to the Primates Meeting. The list is not complete.

Note, the reference in the report is to the performance of the Primates SO FAR. It does NOT ask respondents how they feel about the prospects of handing over real power to this peroration of pompous Pinochets.

(Church / Some Concerns / Serious Reservations / Aggregate)

- All participating bishops / 33% / 28.5% / 61.5%
- All Provinces (equally weighted) / 30.5% / 19% / 49.5%
- Australia / 46% / 21% / 67%
- Brazil / 17% / 33% / 50%
- Canada / 34.5% / 38% / 72.5%
- Central Africa / 75% / - / 75%
- Central America / 50% / - / 50%
- England / 49% / 18% / 67%
- Ireland / 30% / 50% / 80%
- Japan / 75% / 25% / 100%
- Jerusalem & Middle East / 50% / 25% / 75%
- Kenya / 50% / 50% / 100%
(NB - The two Kenyan bishops were at Lambeth in defiance of their Primate)
- Korea / 33.4% / 33.3% / 66.7%
- Myanmar / 50% / - / 50%
- Rwanda / 100% / - / 100%
(NB - The one Rwandan bishop was at Lambeth in defiance of his Primate)
- Scotland / 20% / 60% / 80%
- Southern Africa / 47% / 11% / 58%
- United States / 22.5% / 64.5% / 87%
- Wales / - / 100% / 100%

Note also the list of Provinces where a majority of bishops expressed either some concern or serious reservations about the entire Covenant venture.

(Church / Some Concerns / Serious Reservations / Aggregate)

- All participating bishops / 27% / 9% / 36%
- All Provinces (equally weighted) / 23% / 9% / 32%
- Aotearoa New Zealand / 33% / 17% / 50%
- Brazil / 50% / 33% / 83%
- Canada / 50% / 11% / 61%
- Central Africa / 25% / 25% / 50%
- Central America / 50% / - / 50%
- Ireland / 30% / 20% / 50%
- Japan / - / 80% / 80%
- Mexico / 40% / 20% / 60%
- Scotland / 40% / 40% / 80%
- United States / 41% / 26% / 67%
- Wales / 67% / - / 67%

So, that's 15 Provinces where at least half the bishops have issues with the Primates Meeting as a potential seat of authority, and 11 Provinces where at least half the bishops are not at all convinced about the whole idea of an Anglican Covenant.

Very useful Malcolm, and the answers from the CDG to objections are long and ponderous and sometimes don't answer the objection directly.

http://pluralistspeaks.blogspot.com

See pages 4, 8,9,10 for stats on the other sections of the question about Instruments.

The questionnaire was not the best set of questions to have asked. For example, various concerns about any of the instruments could be about 'how they have been working' or 'how they might work' or 'how this one (Lambeth) has worked' or 'how previous ones' (Lambeth 98 for example) had worked.

Given that the mandate of the CDG for this meeting was to focus on reporting what the questions were, and not actually yet to work on redrafting or working up answers that would be akin to doing the next drafting, the answers are understandably vague. The hope is that they point to more and more work needed to be done.

FWIW, a bishop fresh from Lambeth told:
1. There will definitely be a Covenant &
2. It will be punitive
(implied is that GAFCON won't accept it & that it is pretty much a meaningless failure, but the deck chairs on the Titanic must be arranged).

OOPS -- I left out "NOT" -- it will NOT be punitive (alas spell check was no help in omitting a negative adjective)

I still see no recognition of the two basic problems for drumming up a covenant. One, if we follow Jesus and do love one another across our hot button differences, what will a new punishing covenant do that we do not already have as a blessing? Two, if we do not already follow Jesus and love one another across our hot button differences, then what will any new policing sort of covenant do to really heal or change that failure?

Another lasting problem I have with the process is (A) it is being rushed, raising suspicions that we are putting our trust in covenants rather than putting our trust in Jesus, plus (B) Drexel Gomez as leader/member has no credibility at all, none whatsoever, to me as a progressive believer. I do not count Gomez abilities to even intellectually describe and weigh progressive Anglican believer thinking accurately, let alone to take fair and positive account of our life together as Anglicans in the global village.

Gomez is a hungry fox appointed to write a new toothsome covenant for the hen house.

Pluralist, many thanks for your latest. What a great reminder, that our dispersed sources of existing Anglican authority already work together, flexibly, though never perfectly. I also like being reminded in the Challenge essay of an alleged Rowan comment: Common believer life together preceeds and trumps particular confessions or particular doctrinal developments.

Per typical Anglican views, realignment gets it backward - doctrine conformity before common prayer; but our Anglican Way is just the other way round, most often, our genius as a world fellowship of churches. Any covenant drafted to date cooks this vitamin genius right out of being Anglican, so no thanks.

I belong to this ragtag global fellowship of Anglican Churches. No need for the new policing and punishment, which only serves to sweep God's varied people, neatly out the nearest doors via a pat, tidy covenant gestapo process.

If we progressive Anglican believers do end up signing up to such a covenant, our next immediate acts should be to lodge formal complaints about as many of the other provinces as possible on every imagineable believer difference possible. A grass roots demonstration of the hubris and folly of the new covenant.

Realigned conservative believer mileage may vary, naturally. They do so love to sit always at the right hand of God, do they not? God love 'em.

"peroration of pompous Pinochets."

What IS the collective noun for conservative power hungry prelates? A 'realignment'?

"What IS the collective noun for conservative power hungry prelates? A 'realignment'?"

While that appeals to me, I think there are also several other possibilities.

Since they prowl about like lions waiting to devour, they might be a pride of prelates.

Since they do go on about how humble they are, they might be an exultation of exarchs.

Since they all seem to travel quite a bit they might be a perigrination of primates - or possibly a peripatetic of prince-bishops.

"What IS the collective noun for conservative power hungry prelates? A 'realignment'?" -
Ford Elms

Perhaps, Ford, 'a Propinquity of Prelates' might fit the bill - as this derives from the word *nearness*. The Prelates you are referring to - those of the GAFCON stripe - appear to live in one another's pockets on most issues.

- Although this *nearness* may not much longer apply to them - with the Sydney Diocese preparing for Diaconal, and ultimately Lay Presidency at the Eucharist.