Two Winners

One genuine reason why the vote for the Liberal Democrat leadership may have gone down is that some in the party just did not know who to vote for. I would have only just voted for Nick Clegg, despite thinking Chris Huhne is a substantial figure and occasionally I thought it mattered that he was more ideologically closer to me. I am not a member of the Liberal Democrats, but I am a supporter.

Last time I thought Huhne should have won, but he was an outsider and might have caused internal party opposition in a setting of some anxiety and difficulty. The party hierarchy made a great mistake in supporting Menzies Campbell so strongly. Since then Huhne has rather earned his stripes. He put up a good campaign too, less one gaffe, but he has the kind of experience (in business) useful for running a party and he was clear in front of the cameras. Huhne tried an appeal to the Liberal Democrat left to undermine Clegg's support, particularly regarding the future of the National Health Service. On the other hand, a result of this is an undertaking by Clegg not to undermine the NHS as a state supplied health service. Nevertheless, Clegg is a person of some communicative talent, it is thought, and is a vision person.

I noted in his victory speech - and well delivered - that Clegg referred to "liberalism" on more than one occasion. This is his Blair equivalent of "New Labour" and I'm not sure who noticed this. In other words, it does indicate a freer approach to institutions, and that localism is not set against consumerism. There is more of the Manchester Liberal to this.

The problem is the electoral setting of the next election. It could see Liberal Democrats take more from Labour, as it declines, especially in northern conurbations. On the other hand Labour is less the New Labour that was so unattractive in the north and led to apathy. Labour's current incompetence means the governing party is unlikely to recover in the north, but on the other hand it is not so clearly ignoring the north ideologically. Clegg, though, whilst wanting to keep these gains (and being one himself, in Sheffield), and whilst keeping the basis by which Liberal Democrats were seen as on the (liberal) left and getting into these cities, must also check the right and a possible Conservative recovery. His best approach is to say that if Cameron is different, the Conservative Party is not reformed and not fully behind him, as demonstrated before Gordon Brown started to fail and fall.

Clegg also needs Huhne and the effective Vince Cable up front and close. These two will add ballast to Clegg's media front and ideas (ideas also from that other more Manchester Liberal, David Laws). Once again it is policy and solidity that will appeal, and a sense that there are people here who could be in government. A strong focus on equality of opportunity, getting rid of poverty, seriously simplifying benefits and tax, personal freedom with protected data, and local democratic control, should provide a strong front. I would only suggest some caution about the environment (especially global warming), because it is not the attraction that some politicians think it is, unless there are cost effective and business expanding ways of cutting waste and high emissions that can be fronted as opportunities. Europe needs to be tackled in a positive and democracy-expanding manner. They should also consider that there is a lot of hidden unemployment and statistical lying out and about, and so many now rely on benefits and hardly make ends meet (including me).

I would suggest therefore a common theme and a programme of participation - economic, social and civic, and in areas of politics. This could make sense and be a uniting theme with appeal to the electorate.

Pardon? Archbishop says Anglicans are Different

Confused? I am.

The Archbishop has it that attendance at Lambeth Conference for Anglicans is conditional on agreement with creating a Covenant - a Covenant that will make clear centralised, international, Instruments of Communion, in order to deal centrally with local (national) Churches that innovate Bible reading beyond the one method as laid down by Lambeth 1998 1:10 and where that one Church falls out of expectations of the other Churches.

So that is very narrow, a literalistic reading of the Bible as part of mutual expectations, and do anything different and the Instruments of Communion could declare that Church a failed Church subject to intervention.

In his article in The Tablet, about 100 years of praying for Christian Unity, Rowan Williams says this about Anglicanism:

Along with the rest of my Anglican ecclesial family, I don't agree with the official Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching which sees eucharistic communion as depending entirely on the attainment of a comprehensive agreement on doctrine. But I must also grant that this discipline at least shows that what is understood by the Eucharist (and thus, by extension, the recognised ministry of the eucharistic president) is to do with very basic aspects of faith as an activity of the Body, not of the individual.

I wonder if we can have some consistency here? Or may be he sees semi-literalistic reading of the Bible as "a very basic aspect[s] of faith". The problem is, it is so sweeping from something so narrow, that it is closer to being a comprehensive doctrinal test. Indeed, this is the view of the Conservative Evangelicals: that homosexual biblical texts constitute a first order issue of doctrine because it relates directly to how the Bible is read and how it informs doctrine. Rowan Williams in his Advent Letter has, in effect, presented their argument for them. The argument is ugly enough (it is not first order of anything; the texts do not refer to loving gay and lesbian relationships but a cultural context and about idolatry - and so what anyway?), but what makes the argument work is that Rowan Williams would design Anglican centralisation around this narrowness.

Sounds like comprehensive agreement on doctrine to me, for the Anglican Communion turned into an "Anglican Church".

The difficulty here is not that prayers for Christian Unity are kept at a low level because of fears of:

a Pullmanesque Magisterium, some people's nightmare of Roman Catholicism.

But that this is going to be in prospect for Anglicans, via the Instruments of Communion.

Reciprocal Staying Away?

One of the blogs that never ceases to amaze me for the sheer number of comments received is Father Jake Stops the World: The musings of an eccentric and sometimes heretical Episcopal priest.

I detect that his position has been hardening against Lambeth 2008 as he considers (and presumably reads comments back) the message of the Advent Letter and the way it treats The Episcopal Church.

On Tuesday December 18 he asked the question:

Is Lambeth a set up for TEC? Should our bishops attend as guests with no voice or vote?

He received one comment that TEC bishops should do, on a necessary calculating and principled stance that I had myself reckoned was right. James 1 wrote:

If we go to Lambeth, we may lose "big time' if an agenda is railroaded on the bishops. However, if we do not go, we are going to lose big time even without any railroading. we have to show up if for no other reason to tick off the opposition. but the real reason to go is to make a stand for what is right.

By the next day, Wednesday December 19, Father Jake, remembered how he responded to the passage of B033 at General Convention 2006, which he saw as joining in with the demands of bigotry: he stopped calling himself Anglican. He adds:

That remains my position today. I do not describe myself as an Anglican. In fact, if the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter is symbolic of what it means to be an Anglican today, I reject that designation even more emphatically...

He gets to the nub of the matter, in terms of the changes being pursued:

This loose affiliation of Churches formerly known as "the Anglican Communion," is becoming more structured, and certain segments, such as the Primates, are claiming more authority for themselves. In his recent letter, Dr. Williams, who is known to be very careful in his choice of words, referred to "the Anglican Church." Isn't it obvious what direction things are headed?

..."All Anglicans are equal, but some are more equal than others."

By participating in Lambeth, we affirm such bigotry. Attending is wrong. It's really that simple...

We need to move past this, with our integritry intact.

In the comments John-Julian, OJN, considered again what would happen if TEC bishops did not attend. It remains a strong argument, of course: it is tactical and strategic. He wrote:

I just don't know, Jake. I wish I could feel as clearly as you do about it......

1. If TEC bishops go and GS bishops don't (which seems the most likely scenario at present), then formal "Anglicanism" can conceivably be redeemed.

2. If TEC bishops do not go and GS bishops do go (as they probably would if TEC bishops weren't there), then we simply hand all of it to them on a platter.

3. If Bishop Robinson goes - even only as an invited "guest" - he will command the major attention of the media. For them, he will be the star-of-the-show. And there is the possibility of a lot of very positive and powerful PR for our causes.

4. I think your call for every TEC bishop to boycott Lambeth is whistling in the wind -- far too many TEC bishops would never respect that boycott, and, again, it would just bailing out and handing everything over to the reactionaries. Imagine the Duncan crew representing TEC!!!!!!!

5. Also, there are plenty of Anglican bishops from elsewhere who are definitely "on our side" and who would really feel isolated and "betrayed" if TEC were not to show up.

6. I suspect that the OUTCOMES of Lambeth may well provide a solid basis for action in one direction or another -- even voluntarily withdrawing (with our funding) from the Anglican behemoth.

I am with you so strongly, and I feel the same anger and offense with you, but I also see some practical and strategic matters that affect my thinking.

What to make of this? Well I suppose it comes down to whether the Anglican Communion, as it is intended, is valued or not. Because, if the Communion takes on the appearance Rowan Williams desires, then many a Church would have to be out of it - they would not concede to foreign intervention, and would find themselves put out of the Communion anyway - a case of not wanting to be a member of a Communion that wouldn't have it anyway.

Then they will go after Canada, and then others that apparently fall out of line, but TEC would be right to seek its own alliances and reconstitute a looser Anglican Communion. The simple point is, though, can its bishops sign up to go on the basis that they must agree to the Covenant, a Covenant set up on lines of clarifying international Instruments of Communion set up on the basis of Bible reading based on Lambeth 1998 1:10? It may be not that they are protesting against going, but in all conscience (and a modicum of theological training) that they cannot sign up to such a basis of attendance. And this may be the case for many others outside the United States who find this a compromise too far.

The Limited Attraction of Narrowness

It is interesting to look at the range of comments to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter.

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker Bishop of Fort Worth has written:

The best assistance that the Archbishop can offer to address the situation in TEC is to host a mediation that seeks a negotiated settlement for separation, without rancor or litigation.

This means there is no effect on those who are leaving anyway. It is too late: yet the liberal end that was prepared to meet and discuss is now paying a higher price in terms of doctrinal narrowness in order to try and reassert the Communion.

Perhaps it works as far as The Ugley Vicar is concerned. Well, it does if conditions are met.

If Dr Williams is prepared to continue in the same vein, it may, after all, be appropriate for everyone who has been invited to Lambeth to attend. If he seriously regards this as a gathering of the orthodox and the unorthodox, at which it may, finally, be admitted that some sections of the Anglican Communion are no longer recognisably following the same faith and the same Lord, and at which some clearer definition may be given to what that means, then this may be a table at which it is important to sit down.

If Dr Williams' statements are given credence and if his leadership is allowed to prevail at this point, it may just be possible for the Lambeth Conference of 2008 to rescue the Anglican Communion intact, not in membership but in the faith.

By everyone he means the ultra orthodox of course: I think by "not in membership but in the faith" he means that whilst it will lose members (who are excluded) it will keep the narrow belief. Is this the intention of Rowan Williams? I wonder if the calculation is to declare boundaries to keep the most in, and thus liberals to put up and shut up, or well bye bye to the fringe.

I think John Richardson gets this part wrong:

Moreover, he adds, 'I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy.' At face value, therefore, Dr Williams recognizes the actual unorthodoxy of some of those he has invited...

No, he is not saying the unorthodox are coming, but rather the Lambeth Conference 2008 is not itself an approved pass, a certificate of approval. This is a different point. Trouble is, in once expecting difference to mix, he has now laid down such a narrow basis of invitation that it is a certificate of orthodoxy and approval to the attenders.

The Anglican Centrist, after noticing liberals (like me) being against the Advent Letter, and separatists too, approves the Advent Letter on the basis of an argument that I think has passed by some time ago - and it is the one I did use myself to some degree.

Thanks to Williams' moderate approach, slow-going, and obvious love of the core Christian faith and life, and his broadly Anglican chops, the radical Right will leave the Communion long before that Windsor process is finished -- and those who remain will be increasingly less polarized. Those who remain will continue to cover the spectrum that is the diversity of Anglicanism. There will still be evangelicals, catholics, latitudinarians, etc. The future of Anglicanism as we have known it can continue to be bright - if we can continue to trust that the way forward is a middle way path between today's rash polarities.

I continue to believe that if the Communion follows Williams' lead - the result will be a greater degree of interdependence among the provinces, a greater degree of clarity as to the core indentity of 'Anglicanism', and, ultimately, a better chance that in the emerging generation there will evolve a wider consensus as to how to include gay persons into the full life of the Church without bigotry or discrimination -- and -- with a properly Anglican attention to Scripture, tradition and reason -- and not only in North America but around the world.

Not though when the basis of this Lambeth Conference 2008 is Lambeth 1998 1:10 as the only legitimate, mutually expected of the Churches, basis of reading the Bible.

Country Parson in a comment there made the point even better:

For the last several years I have been telling anyone who wanted to listen (two or three at best) that it is likely we will end up with an African led "Anglican" church with a theology much more akin to conservative Evangelicals, and a Canterbury led Anglican Church that will continue in the faith and tradition it has been accused of abandoning.... Rowan's leadership, or lack thereof, may lead us into a reasonably peaceful separation, and may God's blessings be upon those who leave.

That I used to say myself: the Communion that the schismatics leave will be the more tolerant one. But I changed my mind precisely because of the Advent Letter.

Then there is what Anonymous said there...

If anything can be learned about the Separatists from their leading bloggers and commenters on those blogs -- they really are NOT comfortable with Anglicanism of any sort recognizable to actual Anglicans of the past century or more. I can't tell how many times I've had to defend basic Anglicanism (neither right nor left) -- issues like sacraments, ecclesiology, biblical hermeneutics which make not only Spongian lefties uncomfortable but latent Southern Baptists who own a Prayer Book too.

Yes, I am uncomfortable in places, as a (well, not really) Spongian lefty, and I am sort of reviewing my place in Anglicanism - but especially because of this Advent Letter. The Archbishop, though he speaks about people in purple, is basically saying those who read the Bible, differently, like me, are potentially excluded by diktat of the Communion.

From Glory into Glory by The Rev Michael W Hopkins I think is far more accurate. He calls it: The Archbishop's Credibility Gap and the Destruction of Anglicanism

The paragraph regarding "the common acknowledgement that we stand under the authority of Scripture" is deeply problematic

The Archbishop completely objectifies, makes passive, “the community of believers,” which, for this Anglican, is about as far from Anglicanism as one can get.

Very interesting point (plus the emphasis on the purple wearers). People who use the Bible for their religious meaning are in dialogue with it, rather than submissive, as they come with their experiences and their conversations. Regarding Lambeth 2008, only some experience and some talk is to be legitimate.

Regarding the consequent limitations on invitations (must agree with the Covenant and the basis of all of this), he says:

Earth to Archbishop, the credibility of the “instruments of communion” are already shot, literally, to hell. To be fair to him, this did not begin on his watch, but on his predecessors at the previous Lambeth Conference. The very reason Lambeth 1.10 cannot be "the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion" is that 1.10 had and has no credibility because of the process at which it arrived.

What if the table is in itself so distorted that nothing good can come of it? What if the table is, by design, not credible.

The Archbishop says in his letter that the primary purpose of the Conference will be to work on the Anglican Covenant, presumably to bring it to a final draft. Presumably the Covenant will then be presented to the Provinces of the Communion for their constitutional assent. Is there any reason at all to trust this process? Is not, rather, the evidence that this Covenant will be seen after the Conference as the norm for the Communion as Lambeth 1.10 has come to be seen? Will not the Covenant be presented to the Provinces as a litmus test, i.e., vote for it or you’re out of Communion? Does not the trajectory of the Archbishop’s own writing not lead in this direction?

Curious what is seen to lie behind this, as it takes us not just to Anglican duplicity but also the language of the closet, according to a comment by Clark R. West there, via the private/ public division in Rowan Williams's own thought:

he has insisted that this is his 'private' opinion which has no bearing on his rather imperial pronouncements about what the 'Anglican Church' (sic) believes. Public adherence to one thing, private belief in another--isn't this precisely the problem with the closet? I am perfectly serious in suggesting that Rowan Williams has a kind of eccleisology of the closet

We have had this all the way along with Rowan Williams's "I am an Archbishop and this is what I teach." It is another reason why his approach, increasingly using the knuckle duster under pressure, lacks credibility from him.

Back to centrists (as they'd see themselves) again with the Anglican Communion Institute, which just pursues the Archbishop of Canterbury's agenda of not breaking away whilst regarding The Episcopal Church as heretical. It is all very wordy, calling a reflection:

ACI: Description and Comments on the Archbishop of Canterbury's 2007 Advent Pastoral Letter and its significance for the Anglican Communion

To pursue such destructive innovations unilaterally, and still call oneself ‘Anglican’ has put into question the very notion of Anglicanism itself as a divinely called church within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church into which we are called to grow with other Christians.

The point is, the Communion is not a Church. The Churches are the Church in each case, and they might be regarded as within the One, but that One is theoretical, because it is divided, and finding an ecumenical non-divisible from a bitter division is simply not possible in this world.

There is, also, from Ephraim Radner :

ACI: “We Know What Hour It Is” - A Comment on the Advent Pastoral and Common Cause

It remains unclear if the Common Cause movement - even where its vision is coherent and shared - has a theological vision fundamentally at odds with Windsor. Without an obvious alternative for conservatives in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, with clear Communion connection, this Common Cause movement will declare ‘victory’ by simple virtue of its being the only option for many. The consequences for Communion health and the ability to find a resolution to the present crisis are considerable.

Indeed, the people at Common Cause are making the running: that even when the Archbishop makes the rule for going to Lambeth 2008 as narrow as Common Cause's theology, they are still deciding to have their own autonomy. It is too late. It does not work to exclude even more, on the faint hope of bringing those back whose path is set.

There were denominations before, and we have new denominations now in formation. The basis of talking at Lambeth should be far more open, far less pre-judged, far more able to incorporate the difference that exists. Perhaps, though, Iker is right: better to organise the real division without rancour, so that the longer run prospect of reasonable relationships between former Anglicans in Communion can exist.

Rowan Williams does not make the discussion arena more workable by having "something to annoy everyone", as one of his staff is said to have said.

Response and Waiting

The question of Lambeth 2008 and its narrow terms of attendance and the narrow basis of a Covenant does require responses from such groups and bishops associated with them, such as Inclusive Church, Accepting Evangelicals and the Modern Churchpeople's Union. The issue is whether bishops are going at attend and, in effect, be subversive, or whether they take the stance of staying away, recognising the change in the situation represented by the Advent Letter of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Changing Attitude has published a response. Its focus is rightly on the LGBT people it represents. It is worried about a further fracturing Communion, which would be a criticism of staying away from Lambeth 2008. The danger is that fracturing leaves LGBT people in very unfriendly cultures to potentially harmful Anglicanisms breaking away. However, it sees that LGBT people are being left as second class citizens on the basis of the Advent Letter.

What I'd say to this is that the Advent Letter is not only a present day fix, but is an attempt to fix the present day into the Instruments of Communion and how they operate. This is really rather different, and should be actively opposed by Changing Attitude. It is responding as if it is still hopeful - for example that a better Covenant might be an outcome. I don't see it from the terms and conditions laid down about the agenda and about attendance. Changing Attitude says Lambeth 1998 1:10 cannot be the final word on LGBT inclusion: but not only is it being treated as a final word, it is being bedded in, and a key part of the intended centralised Communion. Changing Attitude wants all bishops invited to Lambeth 2008: look, they are not going to be invited!

The choice may have to be a Communion in which LGBT people are set up as hidden people, or at least (eventually) a smaller Communion where LGBT people play a full part, are heard with everyone and are a full part of Anglican witness. Will they be more effective as a hidden people, across the globe, unable to have any expression of approval given in ritual and ministry, or more effective able to be fully part of an Anglicanism that is loose, plural, open, with blessings for relationships, and openly LGBT throughout the ministry?

I don't know: what I do know is that the terms and conditions of Lambeth 2008 for its agenda and attendance are too narrow for anything other than a predetermined outcome.

A Question about Lambeth 2008

Here is a question I have asked of Inclusive Church via a contact page:

Now that the Archbishop of Canterbury has made it clear that the basis of an Anglican Church is a particular way of reading the Bible, consistent with Lambeth 1998 1:10, and that Churches which do otherwise risk falling out of expectations of the others, and becoming a failed Church laid open to intervention by the Instruments of Communion, and that therefore the Covenant must be a restrictive one that also defines these Instruments of Communion, and further that all attending bishops must agree to the end of producing a Covenant, is it still the policy of Inclusive Church to support Lambeth 2008 towards a narrowing of Anglican boundaries and its centralisation into a pseudo-Roman Church based around Instruments of Communion?

I have also contacted others about participation in Lambeth 2008.

I don't particularly seek replies. What I am seeking is a recognition that things have changed, and that those who never sought to avoid Lambeth 2008 or undermine the Archbishop of Canterbury are being left with fewer options.

One option is to go and aim to produce a Covenant so open that it simply undermines the effort to produce a narrowed Communion; however, an expressed purpose of this Covenant is to clarify the Instruments of Communion for everyone else (the Archbishop already using them). It seems to me that if they are so given legitimacy then the result is an Anglicanism that is different from history and one that many would seek to reject. Many a Church within Anglicanism would find such presumptuous intervention unacceptable in principle, and Anglicanism might break up anyway, this time in more directions than previously.

Graham Kings at Fulcrum says he agrees with me that this is a significant point in Anglicanism, but not the rest of my analysis. He does not say why. Basically Fulcrum likes this Communion-wide solution that narrows the boundaries, the problem being that the Conservative Evangelicals are developing their own structures already and when the discussions go on they will be, as they always are, impatient and those structures will bed in. Fulcrum remains the splitting point for Anglicanism between those Open Evangelicals who would be happier with other strong Evangelicals, and those who prefer the openness of the liberal ethos. The Conservative Evangelicals have long criticised Open Evangelicals as liberal evangelicals - so they open types are not going to have much latitude in new structures, nor if they were to capture the main Communion. Despite the shift to the theological right and therefore the rise of Fulcrum (if quite a small grouping) into the new centre, Fulcrum cannot act as a new broad Church as it carries no glue for others (such a role is not recognised nor seen as needed), and is the splitting point for evangelicals (brought about by the homosexuality debate) just as the Anglo-Catholics underwent their traditionalist and broader split after the ordination of women.

This morning I arrived near the church and put the prayer book on top of the car. As I looked elsewhere it fell off and, hitting the ground, the spine came off down one side. So in the main eucharist service I turned its non-use into a kind of mini-protest. I know most of the words anyway, so it made little difference, except, as a further little protest, I did not say the words of the Church tradition, the creed. If I stop taking communion, then that's it so I did not go that far. As regards Anglicanism as a whole, it's a case of watch and see, but a longer term option may be how to participate whilst removing the sense of personal approval. I am aware of my own marginal position, which comes into sharper focus when the boundaries are narrowed. Who would have thought it, from this Archbishop, when he entered his office.

Resist Canterbury

It has taken me some time to absorb and understand the Advent Letter 2007 from Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, sent to the primates of Anglican Churches first and then released to the public.

It involved me rewriting the Advent Letter for my own sense of clarity. Then I rewrote it in a different order, a logical order as I could see it. Then I boiled it down into a summary. Then, having grasped it, I hope, I thought of a commentary and it is an attitude of resistance. All these stages are in the webpage in Learning - Religion - Denominations - called Anglican Communion Advent Letter 2007.

I am, of course, interested in any comments via here, Thinking Anglicans, or my website, if anyone thinks I have misunderstood the original Advent Letter.

Here I reproduce two parts of that webpage:

Boiled Down Summary

What is being proposed by this Archbishop of Canterbury is a massive centralisation of the Anglican Communion and its local (national) Churches to the Instruments of Communion (via a Covenant). The Communion has to be accepted as the centre of power and authority, rather than the local Church, if the local Church wishes to be regarded as Anglican within this Communion. This does not simply allow, on a Catholic principle, the ability to change doctrine by Communion-wide agreement, which is its potential, but change is prevented because Lambeth 1998 1:10 is the fixed mind of the Communion and indicates the way to read the Bible. A local Church that reads it otherwise risks the common ministry (because it falls outside expectations of the local Church by other local Churches) and may be regarded as a failed local Church, and it is for the Communion to decide to cross boundaries into a failed local Church. However, whatever local Churches decide, individual bishops and their dioceses faithful to the Communion can stay in full recognition of the Communion - a local (normally a national) Church is then bypassed.

An Alternative Strategy: Resistance to Canterbury

The proposals and actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury are a complete rewriting of Anglicanism as a set of autonomous local (national) Churches which come together according to bonds of affection. He is not only instituting a Roman Catholic style centralisation (compared with Eastern Orthodoxy) based around the Instruments of Communion, but he is now also basing it on a Protestant principle of belief and faith, and fellowship, as determined by Lambeth 1998 1:10. The Catholic principle has the edge, because Lambeth 1998 1:10 remains the mind of the Communion (and minds can change), yet is not up for discussion, and also because it is bishops who uphold the Communion and its faith and order. The Communion is made up of local (national) Churches having expectations of faith and order over others, but the task of maintenance passes up to the Communion on the principle of unity. The Instruments of Communion will gain clarity by instituting a Covenant, and it is now clear that the Covenant will be restrictive, because it is based on one method of reading the Bible and understanding ministry. The ministry is ultimately and completely episcopally based, and the recognition of bishops can bypass the local Church whatever its status.

It seems to me that this has to be opposed, and the way to oppose it is to oppose the Covenant and all it apparantly stands for. It could be that some bishops will accept the Windsor Process, go to Lambeth 2008, and undermine the Covenant by making it plural and broad. Don't believe it, because the Instruments of Communion will be at it afterwards according to the perceived (noisy) expectations of local Churches. There never was, and there is not, one way to read the Bible, and there are texts treated with more flexibility than the anti-homosexual clobber texts of the Bible.

The Anglican Communion is not a Church. It is not a form of Roman Catholicism, nor is it a form of Eastern Orthodoxy, but arguably it is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy in its make up of autonomous Churches than it is to Roman Catholicism.

So, what is the reality of the situation? Arguably the Archbishop has become so conservative and centralist in order to keep on board African and other globally southern Churches. He is imposing them on the rest. However, they have already set up local to local boundary-crossing ministerial arrangements. The Communion may take these over, but they will be as autonomous as any of the Churches.

The Episcopal Church will have to protect its integrity, and may have to do so not just against other Anglican Churches but against the Instruments of Communion. These Instruments of Communion have no more right to interfere in a local Church than have other local Churches. The Canadian Church will also find itself the subject of primates and the Instruments of Communion interfering in its decisions. So may other autonomous Churches.

It may be correct now for some liberal minded bishops not to go to Lambeth 2008. It was not part of the agenda of the more liberal minded to undermine the work of the Archbishop. But surely it is now clear that the Covenant will restrict, and horribly, and that the form of Anglicanism proposed is itself innovative and ugly. This Windsor Process could ruin the indeed recognisable nature of many Anglican Churches.

It may also seem perverse, but perhaps people should be realistic, that there are different Anglican Churches that are going to export themselves. Let them - and keep the existing, tolerant, Churches maintained with their integrity. It could be realistic now to consider two or three Communions.

It was a probable outcome that, having gone off on their own, the more selective literalist Anglican Churches would form their own Communion, based around the NURKSS (Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, Sydney, Southern Cone), leaving a more tolerant Communion, headed by Canterbury, that could indeed then revisit Lambeth 1998 1:10 and have a looser generally Catholic Communion. Now it seems that, whilst the NURKSS may form their own body, the Canterbury Communion would be not far removed in its authoritarian basis - belief as well as process, and centralised. So another strategy is needed.

Anglican Churches which value their autonomy and their breadth, and bishops/ dioceses, priests/ parishes and laypeople within all these Churches, should first of all affirm autonomy and even the autocephalous nature of their Churches. Secondly they should establish their own connections according to mutual recognitions. As they do this, they may later wish to invite Canterbury into such a recognition of loose relationships, and thus restore Anglicanism to what it used to be and what it can be.