In his accounting Canon Perry seems to have left out the nine to twelve "No"s of GafCon. Will the ACC seriously initiate the Covenant with much of the Global South out?

And who exactly made the ACC the governor of the Covenant process? Who indeed consented to any of the Instruments assuming authority where none previously existed? Who consented to them setting a date.

The "covenant" is a botched enterprise from inception to its more than tepid reception. Perhaps someone, somewhere should exegete what has happened and read the overwhelming "blah" response it has received.

Had it been a good idea even moderately well executed provinces would have flocked to adopt. Instead the loudest sound in the Communion is hemming and hawing. Buy these lads a clue and suggest to Canon Perry that he learn to count.

Mr. Russell - Quite right about the many member of Gafcon (Southern Cone excepted) whose primates have said they have no plans to adopt the covenant. (They'd rather see their preferences imposed by majority rule of primates, or an ABC submissive to their will.)

It would be nice for a complete picture if those were mentioned in Perry's roundup which is of provincial bodies that have taken some formal action.

But, please, there's no reason for the sarcasm of accusing Perry, or The Lead for that matter, of not being able to count.

Another thing to keep in mind is the longshot possibility that the GAFCON sorts will decide that there is political leverage in attempting to co-opt the Covenant, and will sign on, en masse.

Exactly, Jim.

I should have made this point. There's nothing to preclude the Gafcon primates from adopting the covenant if it becomes convenient. Their rhetoric commits them to nothing.

Moreover, you point to the danger in, um, counting them in the decided no column.

Given that both Brisbane and Sydney synods have criticised the covenant, and consent of the metropolitan diocesces would be required, Australia is a certain "No".
John Sandeman

I accused the Lead of nothing at all. But those who have been reporting the "count" repeated fail to mention the "no" of the Global Primates via GafCon. Of course they might sign it, so might we. But the more significant point is that they wrote it, for all intents and purposes, then repudiated it when they did not get their way.

Their aggressive development of FoCA hardly seems the platform from which they will suddenly sign the Covenant. But until then their no should be counted as such.

So yes, on the part of the hierarchy now invested in this idea I think there is a deliberate effort to misrepresent the state of Covenant activity.

More concerning of course is an atmosphere where few seem to speak frankly. Let Yes be Yes and No mean no. Say what you mean, not what lets you skinny by. Folks are all trying to position themselves for whenever the axe falls.

We are a church so shaving or shading the truth is bizarre.

Alan Perry was right not to include the churches of the GAFCON Primates amongst the "no" votes. When the official bodies of the churches they represent declare they will not adopt the covenant is time enough. As Jim and John say, Primates have been known to change their minds.

June Butler

As a former math major, I assure you that "Canon" Perry (sic) knows how to count. (Archdeacon, actually) But, as Grandmere Mimi points out, I am only counting churches that have made some official statement on the Covenant, normally through its General Synod or equivalent, or at least through a constitutionally recognized body or process.

Who made Gafcon the official spokesman of the several Global South churches?

A thousand pardons Archdeacon, the article titles you "Canon". I am sure that in some universe the GafCon provinces might speak differently from their Primates, but my money is on this universe and the improbability that they will. But I wait to be surprised.

That said, you none the less put on the shoes of a document that has no grounding in any consentpsual process, that was largely written by the Anglican Communion Institute and its Primatial sponsors (Gomez), and was foisted upon the Communion as fait accompli, even as its authors decided not to sign on.

The document' has no authority and when the very few yeses decide to enforce section four the ensuing farce will be amusing and embarrassing to witness. So do the "confirmation math" as you wish, it remains Sound and Fury signifying nothing.

And despite the "not now" resolution of GC77, the vote to endorse a provisional rite for SSBs is TEC's actual vote on the Covenant as we violate the second moratorium for the first time. I wish we had just said no.

I am aware of the waning enthusiasm for the Covenant among the Global South, but I prefer to count chickens that have actually hatched. And I am also aware of the problems in the process to date. But if you read the rest of my blog (start with "Why I Oppose the Anglican Covenant") you will see that my main focus has been the flaws in the text itself, rather than the politics.

Whether for political reasons or because of the intrinsic problems in the document, the Covenant is clearly heading for the dustbin.

Meanwhile, the Global South have pointed us in a much more helpful direction in Bangkok, as they recently shifted the focus to mission. What would the Communion look like if we simply set aside the political bickering and got on with mission together?

I'm not sure we should layer ad hockery on ad hockery, but there is an argument in favor.

The Covenant was devised ad hoc. Should the ACC ad hoc take up the ad hoc task of designing an ad hoc minimum of participating provinces and a deadline? Would that give the original process greater legitimacy?

Or is it best to preclude the potential for future mischief of signing when it is convenient?

I agree with Archdeacon Perry's last post about a move towards mission. Our PB has been pressing this for some time using rainbow graphic to show that we are united in baptism and mission, the colors representing varying paths from one to the other. SO I welcome the GS Primates' adoption of that notion in Bangkok.

I did go and read his entire blog entry pondering what ifs about parts of the Covenant. But since I expect it to "fail to thrive" because no one really wants to touch it much, I find it more useful to move ahead and live as though it were dead already.

(Of course in all good horror movies the monster is never actually dead the first time you think you've killed it, so you need to remain vigilant to kill it again each time it rises. So too with the covenant)

The No Anglican Covenant folks deserve the thanks of the broader Communion for keeping a clear focus on the inadequacies and illegitimacies of the document's theology, polity and the process of its inception and development.