The issue is hermeneutics. Any text will be given meanings by those who read it. There is no reason for TEC and other progressives to abdicate and bow to the Souteast Asian interpretation of the Covenant any more than we need accept their interpretation of the Scriptures. The real point is that only signatories will have any role in how the interpretations are played out. Bosco is correct, as many of us have said, the Covenant does not solve the problems of the Communion; rather it moves the discussion of those problems into a different forum -- and in the present draft it is not the forum the Gafconites desired. It is the Standing Committee, not the Primates.

There seems little pretense any more that the Covenant is becoming a centerpiece in a game of power and control. The question is, do we really want to play by those rules or is there what Paul might call a better way?

Forgive my usually pained syntax:

There seems little pretense anymore that the Covenant is anything other than the centerpiece for a game in power and control...

If this is a game, it is important to be clear about the reasons for not playing. Personally, though, I do not see that the Covenant as it now stands actually offers much in the way of power or control. Earlier drafts, clearly yes, but as those bits were edited out over time, I think we are dealing with a very different document. It seems to me SE Asia is trying to impute an "original intent" which other interpreters will not necessarily have to accept.

So I wonder, then, what virtue is there in sanctioning another document over which the Communion (or at least the signatory churches) will likely argue interpretation?

Richard, have you ever watched rabbis? Arguing about meaning is an important part of what it is to be a believer! That's why I say it is all about hermeneutics -- the "word" becoming "flesh" in action. As we debate the import of our life together, we can learn better to celebrate it. A covenanted life is not a life free from pain or struggle, it is a way through the pain and struggle together.

Tobias,

I get it. Truly! But the struggle, it seems to me, is already happening in so many other quarters, and the desire it appears in some parts since the late great controversy has begun is to "fix" or shut down conversation, not to engage with it. With SEA throwing down the gauntlet on Lambeth I.10 again, the covenant is becoming just another place for this power-laden dynamic to unfold, rather than a new place to engage fruitful (albeit painful and real), open conversation.

We do better, IMO, stepping away from anything that even smells juridical (=power) and stepping into processes that seek mutual understanding and recognition (i.e. Indaba.)

Richard, I do take your point, but the problem is that when we abdicate from the "power" others will be happy to take it up. Our presence, rather than our absence, allows us to be a part of bringing about a good that will not happen if we are not there. It is both a "Hillel" moment and not unlike "It's a Wonderful Life" -- we will leave a mighty big hole in the communion if we are not at the table to witness to what we believe. Me made a huge mistake by trying to play politics with Lambeth 98.1.10 -- bishops voting for it because of the clause about "listening" -- that sort of horse trading is not the way to go.

If we step aside from the Covenant it will be taken as a sign we do not want to be part of the Communion. That may not be what we mean, but that is how it will be read. And it will have a very negative impact on the Indaba Process, and lead both to our further marginalization and loss of voice on behalf of those who suffer the injustices from which we have only fairly recently escaped ourselves.

To vote for a covenant that is, at best, useless simply to stay in the conversation is not something I could do. I've read the document several times, and it gets no better on further readings.

To vote for the covenant to "send a message" that we want to stay in the communion also seems wrong to me. We'd do better to send the message by saying what we mean and meaning what we say, that we want to remain part of the Anglican Communion. Let your "yes" be yes and your "no" be no. We should adopt the covenant only if we think it is a good thing in itself.

As I see it, the church in Southeast Asia speaks the truth about the implications of the the covenant that others on the pro-covenant do not dare to speak, and we should pay attention.

The only "pro-covenant" vote that I'd consider acceptable is further study of the document and postponement of the vote on adoption until GC15 - if I had a vote, which I don't.

June Butler