I think we disappointed all who had bravely said NO to the covenant. A covenant is not needed now or ever. You cannot nail people together in relationship. Companion relationships and indaba conversations are things that encourage relationship - a covenant is just a smokescreen for a hammer.

And as to the use of "heartbreak of psoriasis" - obviously Mark Harris has never been a sufferer of this skin condition which can be life threatening and/or debilitating. It is no joke.

This is a great analogy, John, and I thank you for it.

Hedging your bets is not a good way to live in truth IMO. It is sort of like not going out with someone of the "out" group, hoping you will get a better offer - giving some poor excuse about feeling ill or having to visit you sick aunt and then having a miraculous recovery to go with someone else.

Nice analogy, Ann.

Is it just me, or has the cell phone led to more of this behavior? No one ever seems to want to commit when a better offer might come along. One consequence is a critical mass never materializes for something to happen.

Come to think of it, the waiting to be the last to join can be a dangerous strategy in a world without near instant communication. In a world of slower communication you run the risk of missing the train altogether.

Sped up communication has of course has played a role in amplifying tensions in the communion.

Well said, John.

As Ann has already noted, those of us in the No Anglican Covenant Coalition walked with the members of the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Church through the diocesan votes and the vote at GS of the SEC and greatly admired their courage in saying "no" to such a poor piece of work as the covenant. We very much wanted to stand in solidarity with them, but our hopes were dashed by the we-won't-take-a-stand resolution, which came across as weak and lacking in courage, however well-meaning the intentions of the members of the subcommittee.

June Butler

I see a number of us have already left comment at Preludium on the article in question stating just why it is that the logic of the subcommittee was ultimately disappointing. Having spoken against the Covenant both as an idea (for me, first seeing it in writing in the Windsor Report eight years ago now) and more recently, in writing, as a binding compact, there is something stronger than strategic deferment - whether by shuttlecock or by convention vote - and that is speaking the truth in love.

Torey Lightcap

I said it then and I stand by it now:

"I rise to speak in favor of Resolution D007 and urge this committee to move its adoption as the Episcopal Church’s response to the proposed Anglican Covenant: Say No to the Covenant and Yes to the Communion.

Despite protestations to the contrary, the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant attempts to create a centralized authority that would constrain the self-governance of The Episcopal Church and other churches of the Communion. This unacceptably inhibits Communion churches from pursuing the gospel mission as they discern it.

You will hear this evening from a variety of voices speaking from a variety of perspectives on this issue, and I come to speak as a traditionalist. Our scripture and our tradition tell us to value the ideal of covenant while our reason tells us to reject this proposal lest we throw out the baby of historic Anglican comprehensiveness with the bathwater of hysteric Anglican politics. Like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the proposed Covenant is nothing less than coercion in covenant clothing – and I urge its rejection."

Meanwhile, Matthew 5:37 comes to mind.

The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:37&version=GNT

"Just say
Yes or
No
—anything else you say comes from the Evil One."

Had the actual document been a product of Right Reason, all would have flocked to consent. That they haven't is a sure sign of its uselessness. It was a power play, so poorly constructed that its principal proponents had whatever power might actually exist snatched away by far more skilled maneouverers in the ACC.

Those folks now sulk off to the side while the ACC has to promote a document not particularly suited to what they usually do.

Now I like the "Rope-a-Dope" strategy we have applied, but there always came a time when Ali stood up and decked the opponent, ending the fight. I liked GC77 for that moment, but the majority preferred to bounce on the ropes longer. Perhaps this now becomes more like English Chancery Court when decisions take lifetimes, but neither strategy will change the foes of TEC.

With the Olympics on we are now getting used to amazing gymnast tortions, so who know maybe the convoluted theology and ecclesiology of the Covenant will get some sympathetic traction?

The analogy with the badminton is a bit tortured. The round robin part of the tournament is used routinely in many sports (most notably world soccer) and is a way of avoiding favorites losing flukily in the early stages of a tournament and being knocked out altogether. It also means every team gets to play at least three games, thereby making the round the world trip (for many) worth the bother.

In this case, the Chinese favorites lost a game and ended up second in their group. The team that won the other group would face them in the next round. Knowing this going into the game two of the disqualified teams attempted to lose to avoid meeting the pre-tournament favorites in the next round. It happens.

Soccer takes this out of play by having the last matches of the round robin take place simultaneously.

In the end, though, I couldn't really tell what point you were trying to make, it was all so convoluted...

It can make sense to "step out of the game." Often enough folks have seen an analogy in the Covenant effort and in Communion conflicts to family system theory. Often what makes a difference is when a healthy person simply chooses not to participate. That might seem to suggest a "No;" but if both "Yes" and "No" have been structured into the game, "stepping out" would indeed suggest rejecting both.

It seems to me, though, that we have not been the first to try to change the rules of "the game." Both Southeast Asia and Ireland did something that they said was acceptance of the Covenant; but each did so with specific redefinition of "adoption." They also both added (mutually exclusive) signing statements. Even the Church of England hasn't been relieved of that. The diocesan synods were clear; and yet the leadership interpreted this as "we're just not ready yet," and implied that if could be introduced again.

The committee, and the Convention majority, wanted to find a way to step away from the Covenant and explicitly not step away from the Communion. This effort at compromise (not with the Covenant-ophiles, but among ourselves) won out over explicit rejection.

Marshall Scott

It seems to me that the action of GC accomplished what was accomplished by the diocesan synods in the CofE, i.e., a refusal to vote one way or the other on the Covenant. Neither the GC nor the CofE's Snod have taken a yes or no vote on the Covenant, but have, by different routes, opted out of the game.