If I understand Phil Ashey, the Primates would be running the ship. I'm sorry but I like a checks and balance form of government. If I wanted to check my mind at the door I'd be a Roman Catholic.

Oh for pity's sake. The 39 Articles? Have you read them lately? They are an historical document. Some bits are relevant still, I suppose, but a lot of it is polemics against people and ideas that have been dead for a couple of hundred years, or that we have decided to tolerate. Sheeesh.

Great idea for a SECT that P Ashey is proposing! (I suspect that those of us who are Anglicans will *dispose* of it, however)

It seems from Noll's paper that Orombi doesn't attend very many meetings ......... I am beginning to think he might be a good guy, after all!

Bishop Orombi is obviously regrouping...there are so many fires to put out from a landscape of viewing everything from his much supported anti-LGBT Uganda Law and ongoing Supreme Court law suits from California to Georgia to Uganda (yes, he´s suing St. Johns in Uganda because Bishop Samuel Balagadde Sekaddle--of U.S. parish ¨oversight¨ capers--recently retired as bishop of Namirembe Diocese and is accused of selling diocese property (6.5 acres)...what is it about selective morals that has so much in common with selective Scriptural preaching and self-righteous defiance at The Anglican Communion that makes some of the Gafcon Primates believe they are more ¨Godly¨ and wise than others? More will be revealed, no doubt, when Bishop Henry makes his next move(s).

Well, whatever else may be said about the role of bishops, Phil Ashey is clearly addicted to purple prose...

I think maybe Noll and Ashley are onto something here. This proposal would certainly clarify debates around the world.

At the recent General Synod of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia, our delegates devoted a day of synod business to the covenant, and committed us to two years of consultation by dioceses, and another General Synod Debate in 2012, as we decide if the existing draft is sufficiently annodyne for the benefits of signing up to outweigh the dangers. (Not in my opinion.)

I have no doubt that had a revised covenant along the Noll/Ashley lines been considered it would have been rejected outright at the first reading, and I expect the same would occur in a large number of countries.

We would then be able to put the whole covenant discussion away, and get on with the business of being the church, in our various ways in our various parts of the world.

So please keep it up, gentlemen.

Edward Prebble

If the General Synod of the C of E simply has the guts to vote against signing the Covenant, it will be a useless instrument, and it will encourage others not to sign. It is guaranteed to split the Anglican Communion by one means or another; and is enough to make some people think of crossing the Tiber - oh, where have I heard that before? Maybe we could just cross the Pond?

According to my cynical theory, the Covenant is designed to fail in England, if not in synod then in Parliament. That will embolden many other provinces to reject it as well.
Then those who envision a Anglican magisterium run by primates will have to choose between the Communion and schism. Most of them will choose to stay.

Please recall that Noll also co-drafted the CAPA Road to Lambeth document. http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa/ What would Africa do without fine old Africans like Noll? (Truro, Trinity Ambridge Diocese of Pittsburgh) The irony of this document is not just its emphasis on "repentance" for TEC, something never suggested by Windsor, or its emphasis on the Global South taking the lead in defining the covenant, but its discussion of "colonialism"

Those who want to see an end to any prospect of a successful Covenant must surely be hoping the Global South Primates will fully sign up to the Noll version.

But knowing as they must the English could never sign up to this style of governance one wonders just quite what the strategy is. Is the rejection of this impossible option next week, intended to make the GS crowd look reasonable?

The whole matter, once again, seems to be dominated exclusively by the ACNA agenda - and as Duncan has already declared the ABC and Lambeth Conference to be failed Instruments and Noll abolishes the ACC - we are left with a government by Primates.

There you are. This pantomime has so many sub-plots it has long ago lost any coherence.

" In the name of preventing one change – toleration of same-sex partnerships – it proposes to turn Anglicanism into a confessional sect where everybody is told what to believe."

- Jonathan Clatworthy -

This Statement from J. C of 'Modern Church' sums up pretty well the basic premise of the suggested Covenant, which some N.Z Anglicans (at least) would find offensive. To postulate a culture of 'unity at any price' is simply un-Anglican and a barrier to the presentation of the gospel 'To All' - including the LGBT community which has been rejected by certain of the 'sola scriptura' Provinces of the Anglican Communion. The Holy Spirit has found something fresh to say in our day and age, which is a word of comfort to those who really need to hear it from the Church.

The further implication of a magisterial role for the Primates - or any other entity within the Communion - for the purpose of imposing doctrinal norms which militate against LGTBs is abhorrent to many of us, and has no place within the ethos of the 'post-39 Articles' Anglican spirituality.

People like Noll and Ashey are intent on imposing their own supposed 'orthodoxy' upon all others in the Communion. However, this particular brand of homogenised 'orthodoxy' does not fit in with the way of pursuing Gospel revelation in, or to, 21st century Christians. When will they realise that the gifts of sexuality and gender-differentiation are gifts for all of God's children - not just for begetters of children? A little more 'Song of Solomon' and a lot less prurience in sexual matters is better suited for God's message of Love in God's world.

Assuming the C of E signs up to the Covenant and TEC eventually finds itself in second tier status, how will the English cathedrals cope during the summer months if they are unable to invite the many first-rate visiting American choirs who sing the daily services when the resident choir is on holiday?

At least Noll et al. are finally admitting that what they are doing is making the Anglican Communion into something that it is not, never has been, and was never intended to be. What I don't understand is this: if they really want an international Church built around the unchangeability of marital rules, why don't they just do so? Why are they so intent on taking the AC with them?

This also serves to give the lie to the often repeated claim that ECUSA is trying to force its way on the AC. There *is* a party that is intent on making sure that everyone in the AC believes and acts as they do, and it ain't ECUSA.

Assuming the C of E signs up to the Covenant and TEC eventually finds itself in second tier status, how will the English cathedrals cope during the summer months if they are unable to invite the many first-rate visiting American choirs who sing the daily services when the resident choir is on holiday?

Posted by: Hugh of Lincoln on Wednesday, 4 August 2010 at 3:39pm BST

But why-ever should it affect the choirs ? Surely it will make no difference at all, on the ground to choirs, pulpit exchanges, ministers, brass rubbing and what not ?

In fact, it will make precious little difference to any of us, except church politicians.

Hmmm, again the established polarities about this new fangled covenant. Superfluous and haughty over-reaching for lefty modern Anglicans. Far too Toothless and soft for righty backwards looking Anglicans.

Double hmmmm, for this odd notion that Rowan Williams and some masterful crew behind the scenes has intended/planned it all this way ... a coded coup in which the rightwing covenant fails, and Anglicans go back to muddling through in daily life, worship and service.

I don't think we need any new fangled covenant, least of all one which requires an immature conformity of the juvenile male clubhouse pattern. No gurrrllls.

Poor Africa, how indeed will African Anglicans go forwards by passing local laws which make it a crime to read the scientific literatures about embodiment? Dumbing down and being proud of dumbing down do not seem like reliable global Anglican ways of going nowhere but forward, short or long-term.

Do let those closed-minded Primates who pride themselves on never reading modern science, do let them lead and judge and punish. The earth is flat and square; says so plainly in SKJV English. Not.

Alas, we Anglicans do live in very interesting times, Lord have mercy. My proxy vote is still with Jonathan C.

The purpose of the covenant is to create an inner core of 'real' Anglicans from others on the fringe. A moments glimpse at who might be 'in' and who might be 'out' leaves me in no doubt that I belong in the outer grouping. That will be a group of autonomous churches in communion with one another, with a shared history arising from the Church of England and it's missionary endeavours, and with a range of other familial characteristics that make them recognisable as belonging together despite their differences. That sounds like Anglicanism to me, so maybe it's those who will sign up to the covenant who will be on the fringe.

"In fact, it will make precious little difference to any of us, except church politicians". - Pantycelyn

Just what then are these 'relational consequences' in the Covenant text? It's all so vague. If there are to be no snubs at the altar rail for ordinary Episcopalians visiting Anglican churches abroad, then what of the bishops? Stop them attending Lambeth? Or let them attend, but only to observe bible studies and indaba groups; serve them tea and cucumber sandwiches at Buckingham Palace, but keep them them away from the posh canapes and champagne and ask them politely to refrain talking to Her Majesty?

If the Americans are absent from international committees, then what is there left to discuss? Not gay bishops and blessings, because these won't be of concern to the Covenanting parties. World poverty, climate change? Surely if you were serious about these issues you would want the Americans involved.

Has anyone thought through what a post-Covenant Anglican Communion would actually look like?

Pantycelyn,
No, choirs aren't terribly important, but some churches are likely to refuse to be associated in any way with other churches which have taken a different path. We were rather startled when the word got back to us (a liberal parish) that a charitable group at one of the local conservative churches had been told by the leaders of that parish that it might not accept our offer of time in our (commercially licenced) kitchen to carry out their good work. Their own kitchen was temporarily unavailable to them, but apparently our perceived unorthodoxy was thought to be too contagious to permit any cooperation.

Too right, Fr. Jonathan! If the Covenant goes ahead on the present basis, that will be the end of the Anglican Communion as presently constituted. Then, those of us who are left behind can just get on with the task of propagating the Gospel. It's all just rather sad.

Hymncat, just to clarify - were these two Anglican parishes?

Yes & no - they were both Episcopal parishes, but one was among the most liberal in the diocese, and the other one was one of the early adherents to CANA.

I see Hymncat that is troubling. Sorry to hear that.

Troubling and shocking, Hymncat. I didn't realize that things had come to the point that even our kitchens are polluting to the righteous.