Decisions by groups are virtually always made on "political grounds." That's how democracy works. I think the New Zealand church has given us a good model on how to proceed -- carefully, but proceeding nonetheless.

Sure, but there's politics and then there is politics. At this point, you could put language in the covenant asserting a Scriptural basis for banning ketchup on fries and people would still affirm it if they thought we would not.

And well it should be in there - ketchup on fries - never!

Thank goodness other provinces are taking this matter up before TEC does. I am grateful for New Zealand's struggle with this covenant. I personally am glad they found problems with part 4.

(What happens if someone wants to draft a proposal that instead of ketchup one puts mayonnaise on fries because that is done in certain parts of the world?)

Jim's right.

This isn't just politics as usual. It's a charade. The covenant has become a focal point in which what it actually says is drained of the theological significance high-minded folks (Rowan Williams, perhaps) would like to give to it.

Its clauses have consequences in and of themselves to be sure. In that sense they still matter. But decisions about whether to sign the covenant have become entirely dominated by the common knowledge that it is a focal point -- "that the first party to walk away from the table loses."

No matter what the covenant says, its significance to the parties is that it has become a focal point.

In that sense all parties have lost integrity, in the sense of honesty.

Jim-are you really saying that we ought "to sign the darned thing" more or less to spite those who don't think we will?

It seems you've been saying this sort of thing a lot lately. I can't really tell how much you mean it.

I find this a really unpersuasive argument, even when said in a positive way (eg., we ought to sign because it allows us to stay at the table).

We ought to sign because its a good document; because it accomplishes what it sets out to do; because it sets out plainly what is best about our Anglican heritage that we hold in common. If it doesn't do those things, then we ought not to sign.

Let our yes be yes and our no be no. Just because everyone else has lost all integrity in this process doesn't mean we should follow suit. Do you really think that what we might gain by "holding our noses" and signing would be worth it? Especially considering what we might lose?

Jason Cox

Lambeth 1:10 should have taught us never to vote for nor sign anything because it's the best we can do or it is ultimately irrelevant. If we do, it will not be long before someone will be jamming it down out throats or we'll be jamming it down theirs.

Jason, I'd like to keep all of our options open and make a decision at the General Convention in 2015.

RE Jim's comment above - "keep all our options open" and say we are seriously considering it, but have reservations.

As long as that's our strategy -- and symmetrically its the strategy of the Global South -- neither side has an interest in signing. It's not a game of musical chairs where the last to react loses. We're all "at the table" and the first to walk away loses.

It's not Lambeth 1.10 all over again unless the Global South gets the changes it wants. At this point that seems unlikely.

I wonder if the Covenant would really be considered a Constitutional change and therefore require two successive General Conventions, or a canonical change requiring only one? Does anyone know if this has been decided/considered?

Bishop Epting, I don't think it has been decided. I am pretty sure that the relevant committee of Executive Council has asked the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons to look at it. Whatever their decision, I think we should consider this over the course of two conventions because it is a momentous decision.