We Anglicans have been able to disagree about so much …. ordination of women and womens’ changing status/roles in society overall … divorce and remarriage …. haven’t heard all that much upset about contraception lately but it used to be a really red hot disagreement … stem cell science-medicine and all the other flooding science changes … role/status/power of laity … service and witness in a changing modern world ….

Why so fast, why just now?

Let us see what is being revealed by the Holy Spirit in the Church. It would be better to go where the Spirit leads than to be constrained by a juridical contract whose terms we may come to rue, and is more likely than not to be an impediment to responsiveness to the demands of the Spirit.

(p.s. Bosco, I’m afraid I’m just too old and crabby to host a web-site, but I must confess to my fun in blogging, Ron)

I have no more desire to get into a fractious dialogue with you than you with me. But any other dialogue is most welcome on my site (save that I am going to have a blog holiday till early January!).

Yes, I am ‘for the Covenant’. Yes, I am concerned about TEC and its place in the life of the Communion. No, I do not think TEC should be expelled from the Communion. But I do think the Communion and TEC are out of step with each other and, despite reading many comments and commentaries on this situation, I have not yet seen a sure remedy. I am convinced that not having the Covenant is not a solution to Communion ills; I also recognise that the Covenant comes with no guarantee that it will lead us to a solution.

In his Christmas message, Dr. Radner sees TEC as diminishing, both in numbers and heart. However, from this simple statement alone – in a time of global recession, the smaller number of faithful adherents has managed to increase it’s commitment, by digging into it’s own pockets. That doesn’t sound like disaster to me. Just the opposite.

Those who have remained faithful to the prophetic role of TEC and the Angican Church of Canada: of ‘setting the captive (LGBT community) free’ within the Church, are willing to put their money where their mouth is. The efficacy of the Gospel witness is not only about numbers. And this is one of the Global South’s constant problems, thinking that their emerging third-world Churches, with their vast numbers of Anglican adherents (albeit largely uneducated on modern research into matters of gender and sexuality), have some sort of right to dictate their version of biblical moral rectitude to the rest of us who are Anglican.

I would think that a pared-down Gospel-oriented Church, such as TEC, with it’s prophetic call to a new understanding of God’s love for ALL people – regardless of colour, race, cultural and social difference – as well as gender and sexual orientation – will be better placed to serve the needs of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, ministering to serve the cause of justice and peace in the world of today, than the mistaken adherents of a homophobic and misogynous brand of ‘Chsitianity’ such as has grown up in Uganda and Nigeria.

Just wanted to point out Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner’s recent position on the Covenant and the state of the Anglican Communion: http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/12/the-new-season-the-emerging-shape-of-anglican-mission/.

His thoughts seem opposite to yours, yet I tend to agree with both of you. How odd…

Interestingly, I wonder whether the 2 dioceses Peter has had to do with – Nelson and Christchurch – are the 2 dioceses favouring the Covenant?

Part of the issue is concretely spelling out in plain English what we want, understand by, and expect of a “Communion” – and how that differs, for example, from a province (and a diocese).

For readers here, Peter Carrell runs one of the few NZ Anglican blog sites, Anglican Down Under, where he is currently running a series arguing robustly in favour of the covenant.

He there adds an important point into the muddle: what happens if the CofE does not sign the covenant? Again, not being a canon lawyer, I understand it is unclear if the General Synod of the CofE is sufficiently empowered to pass such legislation or if it requires an Act of Parliament. And would the British Parliament be prepared to hand over determination of the faith and order of their established church to those external to its shores?

Gittite, I am unconvinced by the suggestion that we should sign the covenant to prevent “boundary crossing”. The term “Anglican” has long ago lost its trademark and is used by numerous groups not in communion with the See of Canterbury. Finally, there are many places served by more than one province of the Anglican Communion: Europe, North America, Australia at least was, and still might be (smoke signals issue again), and probably other areas readers might know. It is all part of the surprising platypus-nature of our denomination.

My worry is, however, that NOT signing will be a signal to those who wish to interfere across boundaries that the territory of the non-signatory church is fair game for the planting of another ‘Anglican’ Church in that territory. Then we would have a situation where the trademark title ‘Anglican’ could be in dispute. This is nothing short of schism.

In fact, I suggest the reality of your version (1) will more probably turn out to be “high level impairment and messiness in the Communion with the Covenant” – as some provinces sign, and others do not, and some affirm sections 1-3 but not 4, and some individuals leave, and dioceses and provinces fragment to form new bodies which see themselves in some sense “Anglican” but are associated with whatever is left of the Anglican Communion at the Archbishop of Canterbury’s concept of various levels of communion.

With sufficient dedication and hard work we will create a world in which the largest religious denomination has three members and they will be on the verge of schism.

Anglicans will still be able to receive communion in these churches,

Ironically, that’s the point of the inclusivity with which some are taking exception, isn’t it? TEC’s approach being broadly “sure, you can come in and worship here, whoever you are”… if the rest of the world somehow chooses to think ill of TEC for that, shame on them, not on TEC!

You can read the SEC’s response, a couple of years ago now, at http://www.scotland.anglican.org/index.php/news/entry/sec_response_to_draft_anglican_covenant/ – note particularly the use of the words “concordat” and “celebrates” and the whole atmosphere of “maximum good” it radiated.