"For the Communion to recognize two provinces in one country (USA or Canada*) - one geographical, growing from its historical roots, and second, existing in order to further a particular theological agenda - would spell the doom of any coherent Anglican ecclesiology. The First Council of Nicaea, faced with the Novation controversy (a somewhat similar situation, actually), ruled that there can be only one bishop for one diocese. Anglicans have always followed this rule, for good reason." - Bishop Pierre Whalon -

Bishop Pierre's essay for 'Anglicans Online' has put the Covenant process in perspective, when he suggests that the inclusion of a ACNA as a separate province in North America would be tantamount to authentication of a duplicate jurisdiction in the same area as an existing Province of the Anglican Communion. Such a measure, as Bp. Pierre suggests, would render the Communion responsible for supporting two separate provinces which existed in the same place, but with differences in ecclesial structure, dictated by theological rather than geographical limits.

From this instance alone, it would seem that the people for whom accommodation is being made - to retain them within the family - would be the very entity that was unwilling to conform to the tradition of Anglican (catholic) ecclesiology. What point would there be in changing historical ecclesiology in order to accommodate dissidents?

Stephen Noll, a key GAFCON/FCA theologian, has written a perceptive article on the Ridley Cambridge draft, 'The Ridley Cambridge Draft: an appreciation', on his blog, Stephen's Witness, 20 April 2009.

http://www.stephenswitness.com/2009/04/ridley-cambridge-draft-appreciation.html

He states:

'It is my conclusion that the GAFCON churches should move to the front of the queue and sign on to the Covenant.'

Very encouraging indeed that GAFCON at last recognises that the Covenant is the way forward.

I again find Bishop Ws remarks clear, and his summary of significant history or contexts quite apt.

None of these is all that telling, however, to me.

So far, the covenant seems to have arisen sharply, bearing two streams of problematics. One is the My Way Or The Highway rise of conservative evangelical plus conservative high church believers. The wedge issue was at first supposed to be WO; but then nobody seemed all that determined to fight to the death about women, though bishops have heated that up quite a bit at least in CoE. The other stream was more or less Canterbury, feeling blindsided by VGRs election in New Hampshire. Worse, Canterbury could not persuade VGR to step aside like JJ. Common sense suggests that Canterubry then began again to hunger for more central powers. I chalk that opening up to Carey, too. He was just that sort of evangelical bishop who yearns for power to conform all Anglicans confessionally; culling or restricting methods-hermeneutics as the Camel's Gate through which non-evangelicals may never enter God's kingdom.

Both problem streams are complicated. No covenant draft really does much.

So far as conservatives go, the rest of us are hardly going anywhere - off planet travel and resettlement as yet being still in technical development. If the rest of us are not going anywhere, much less the queer folks, then nothing much is solved. The latest covenant draft puts off considerably the still pending Final War Clash, conservatives against everybody else in a fight to the death. A conservative long view may survive. We are reaping the harvest of plans begun, way back, under USA Pres. Johnson. Can we hope that warrior cons will all die off for real, before they can force the rest of us to fight to the death over doctrines?

So far as Canterbury's longings go, the covenant does not do much better. In exchange for a slight centralised increase in Canterbury power, the other three instruments also get more centralised power. The unwritten rule presumes that in this new covenant, the instruments will ever be able to discern and agree about the hottest, most complicated believer issues possible. Is that likely to really happen?

Can we then do completely without messy Anglican leeway, precisely in hot button domains where historically we believers have most needed it?

Stephen Noll has written a rather two tracked view of the Covenant draft, though I'm in the in between of commenting on it for my blog and having a new group cartoon.

http://www.stephenswitness.com/2009/04/ridley-cambridge-draft-appreciation.html

I'm also wondering about a blog for our so very different In Depth Group this evening and its lively discussion (that nicely went on in between parts of my presentation as well as afterwards).

http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relthink/theologypaper08.html

"Very encouraging indeed that GAFCON at last recognises that the Covenant is the way forward."

With Graham Kings and Stephen Noll agreeing that the Covenant would best serve GAFCON & FCA, this fact should send a signal to the rest of us: that ACNA is very serious about meeting certain requirements in order to be accepted, as an alternative North American Province, by the Instruments of Unity. - All this, despite the vilification of Canterbury by the Primates of GAFCON, who might just be using the Covenant to undermine the Communion.

I'm sorry to sound so cynical, but one must be as 'harmless as doves but wise as serpents', when
dealing with the culture of dissidence.

"For the Communion to recognize two provinces in one country (USA or Canada*) - one geographical, growing from its historical roots, and second, existing in order to further a particular theological agenda - would spell the doom of any coherent Anglican ecclesiology. The First Council of Nicaea, faced with the Novation controversy (a somewhat similar situation, actually), ruled that there can be only one bishop for one diocese. Anglicans have always followed this rule, for good reason." - Bishop Pierre Whalon -

But Nicea was not about a denomination or 'communion' (in the modern sense), but about the whole Catholic Church. Our Anglican Communion recognises the Roman, Orthodox and (in some places) Lutheran communions as being fully constituent members of the 'Catholic Church'. Are we not then already in contradiction of Nicea by having separate episcopal structures in the same geographic areas? And if we were asked for our justification for the continued existence of those structures, would at least part of our answer not be 'theological differences'?

"And if we were asked for our justification for the continued existence of those structures, would at least part of our answer not be 'theological differences'?"

But ought we not to be working and praying sincerely for these "sad divisions" soon to cease? Is it really such a good idea at this time in our history to actually add to this situation? Besides, a diocese is the local ecclesia gathered around its bishop, it is NOT, as Bp. Whalon says, a group of people whose existence is based on the furtherance of a particular political agenda. The point of diocese as local is that we are supposed to be united. If there can only be one diocese in a particular area, we are kind of forced to be united, despite our differences, until, that is, some decide their purity is being tainted by having to associate with Them (however 'Them' is identified). At that point, we all show how little Christian commitment we really have.

Ford, I'm in full agreement with that sentiment. However, I note that only a very few individuals are practising it by 'returning to the mother church'. Everyone who (in theory) believes it is still, by their practise, testifying to their belief that their doctrinal and historical differences with the Roman Catholic Church continue to justify their separate ecclesial status. In practice, we show that we believe that truth (or, to be honest, our interpretation of the truth) is more important than unity.

That being the case, it seems a bit hypocritical for us to criticise others for doing the same to us.

"For let it be clearly stated, there is no future for a vibrant and coherent Anglican and Christian body that includes The Episcopal Church (TEC) and Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) as they now exist" - Professor Stephen Noll, on the revised
(Ridley) Covenant draft -

This is a clear and unequivocal statement by Prof. Stephen Noll that he would exclude the TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada from any viable Covenant relationship. (This would give TEC and the A.C.of C., and others sympathetic to them within the Communion adequate reason to spurn the Covenant process altogether).

NOW: Is that because he wants the ABC and the ACC to endorse ACNA's membership of the Communion, at the expense of TEC and the A.C.of C.?

Or, does he really expect the Anglican Communion to go along with the idea of double jurisdiction in North America, with ACNA as a first class partner with Canterbury (Whose jurisdiction over the Communion, ACNA and associates have already questioned) leaving the majority of Anglicans in North America to suffer the distinction of a second or third class role?

Either of these situations would clearly render the proposed Covenant null and void for many would-be partners.

"That being the case, it seems a bit hypocritical for us to criticise others for doing the same to us."

Well, the "sad divisions" are something that we have inherited as a fait accompli. Many of the groups that have arisen out of those disputes recognize the current situation is not right, and are working towards healing them, however fitful and sporadic those attempts may look. Much has already occurred. My godson is Roman Catholic. It isn't that long ago that I would have caused a stir in both his Church and mine for even going to his Baptism, and it certainly wouldn't have even been thought of that I could be his godfather. That comes out of work that I think is rather different than working hammer and tongs to introduce more division.