Also today you can read conservative dismissal of the Covenant here,

http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/gafcon-leaders-dismiss-futile-covenant-draft-cen-103108-p-7/

I have been surprised by how little response there has been to this recent report from the Covenant Design Team. We initially reported on it here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_communion/the_latest_form_the_covenat_de.html

and Dean Sam Candler wrote a very good essay that touched on the proposed covenant here:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/anglican_communion/another_instrument_of_anglican.php

My take is that people have become so cynical about the process that they no longer trust he design group or care what it says. This is understandable given a) design team chair Drexel Gomez's support for border crossings bishops; b) design team member Ephraim Radner's former membership on the board of the Institute for Religion and Democracy; and c) the Anglican Communion Office's steadfast refusal to acknowledge that these activities constitute any sort of problem.

I do wish, though, that people would re-engage in scrutinizing the covenant. We may have clear reasons for distrusting members of the design group, but we may still have to vote on this instrument of exclusion at some point, and we need to be prepared.

Using strong language deliberately, I'd say what started the 'Covenant Process' is a flawed (historically and Biblically naive) premise, and what maybe an ecslessiological HERESY denying the work of the Spirit in honest conflict. Good theology, past experience of the church and present organizational research warn us that conflict avoidance will kill creativity in the church.

Conflict and profound disagreement have always been part of the church's life. Discovery has come as we've faced it.

Somehow the Covenant harks back to formal church councils as if 'talking things through' led to clarity and clean conflict resolution. In fact the Ecumenical Church Councils each came in the middle of a controversy, were prompted by someone saying or doing something controversial and occasionally unprecedented,the councils that came to be called 'Ecumenical' all got that title in retrospect, because, for example, after Nicaea, the debate raged on for a generation and it looked at the time like Nicaea homoousios was only the opinion of an unsustainable minority. Athanasius became a bishop in exile (like Gene Robinson?) because 'the whole church' was rejecting Nicaea.

At its best, the church has managed (sometimes struggled) to include dissent and non-standard opinion and practice. The circumcision and kosher meat controversy in Acts would be an instance in scripture. The steady inclusion of mystical teachers and writers who stretch the bounds of official doctrine would be a good instance through the church's long history since Acts.

Secular organizational theory is catching up with what the church has --- sort of -- known for a long time (admittedly we've practiced it inconsistently).

For secular witness, I just came across this in Jeanne Brett's book, "Negotiating Globally" in the chapter "Negotiating Decisions and Managing Conflict in Multicultural Teams" (which sounded like our communion's situation at its best):

"Research shows that when team minorities dissent, majorities are more likely to generate original and novel solutions to problems. Organizations grow faster when top-management teams engage in constructive debate. Companies with top management teams that engage in debate have a higher return on investment. Cross-functional, new-product teams are more innovative when they have a lot of disagreement about task design if they have a norm for open expression of doubts or if they engage in collaborative problem solving. Constructive controversy, the open-minded discussion of opposing views for mutual benefit, appears to be the key to creating value during multicultural team decision making." (pp. 175-176). The chapter and its rich research references suggest to me the real promise of global Anglicanism and therefore the threat to the communion of conflict avoidance through imposed unanimity. I worry that finding a means to impose unanimity is what really prompted a variety of Anglican leaders to argue for a Covenant. The various iterations of it seem to be getting more focused on dialogue than diagnosis and prescription, but unless a Covenant finally teaches us to fight like Christians, it can't be a creative force and won't point us toward a vital Anglican future.

Donald Schell