"The potential for a covenant arrangement to entail a difference between those who might wish to sign and those who might not is recognized as a complication, and consideration of this challenge will have to form part of that exploration," he wrote. "That is a long way indeed from saying that the Communion is preparing for a two-tier approach and further still from saying that the Archbishop of Canterbury backs it."

A bi-lined story by Jonathan Petre in The Telegraph, said an audacious plan to save the worldwide Anglican Church by allowing it to divide into two tracks, one fast and the other slow, was being backed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The proposals could permit liberals from North America to push ahead with divisive reforms such as homosexual bishops without destroying the Church. But they could also allow conservatives from Africa and Asia to form an influential inner core that would edge out the liberals from positions of power and reduce them to a second-class status. View story here: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4066

However, this brought an angry retort from the usually sanguine Cameron who is also a close personal friend of Dr. Williams, denying any such possibility.

VOL has now seen the document in question. According to its contents it will take up to eight years (not five as one news report had it) to develop a working covenant that all, presumably can sign on to. The question is will the Global South and persons like Archbishop Peter Akinola wait that long?

A source in London told VirtueOnline: "It is hard to imagine what a two-tiered Communion might look like. I don't think the Global South would remain in company with New Hampshire under any circumstances, given the opportunity to revise the present arrangements. Equally I can't see how it would be possible to be half in Communion with someone. Would it mean being refused Holy Communion when visiting one another's churches? Transferring clergy being re-ordained, and transferring laity being re-Confirmed? I think the Report has strayed a little into the realm of science fiction at this point." Here is the Covenant statement:

http://www.anglicancommunion.org/commission/covenant/consultation3.cfm

1. Phase I. Initial Formulation (1 Year): Of several possible approaches to drafting, the most obvious for task completion, and probably most cost-effective, and that adopted by the JSC at their meeting, is to establish a small covenant drafting group (CDG): perhaps ten members reflecting diversity in the Communion as to geography, culture and church tradition. JSC resolved that the Archbishop of Canterbury should appoint such a group in consultation with the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion. Its function is to formulate a draft or a number of draft options accompanied by an explanatory text (to include the cases for and against such draft(s) and how the draft(s) would work in practice). In the meantime, it is intended that this paper should be used as the basis of an initial informal consultation, inviting input from interested parties especially other Communion bodies (e.g. IATDC, IASCOME, ACLAN, ecumenical commissions, the Global South). CDG is asked to submit preliminary work on a draft or drafts to a joint meeting of the JSC and the Primates in early 2007.

2. Phases II-III. Testing-Agreement (3-5 Yrs): If JSC and the Primates accept the proposals of the CDG, JSC intend to circulate the document to the Provinces, asking them (i) to invite comment from within that church; (ii) to collate the feedback and (iii) to return this to the CDG to consider the feedback and formulate a more developed text(s). Consideration and evaluation of this text could form an important element of the Lambeth Conference meeting in 2008. The revised draft could be brought to the full meeting of ACC in conjunction with a meeting of the Primates in 2009.

3. Phase IV. Implementation (2-3 Yrs): There are at least two options for the adoption of the covenant:

4. On approval of the final draft by ACC and the Primates, JSC could commend the text for adoption by the central assembly of each church. The Lambeth Commission recommended that each church enacts a brief law authorizing a designated authority in it (e.g. its Primate) to enter the covenant on behalf of that church and committing that church to comply and act in a manner compatible with the covenant. Other methods of provincial adoption are possible.

5. Alternatively, ACC could adopt the Covenant and incorporate it into its constitution (i.e., no adoption by each church) subject to confirmation by two-thirds of the Provinces.

6. Phase V. Monitoring: The draft covenant in TWR proposes periodic reviews of the administration of the covenant by the (proposed) Council of Advice.

1. What of those who say that the content of the Covenant is such that, for the time being at least, they cannot "take it", and they will have to "leave it"? Do they leave the Anglican Communion as a result? That may not be a necessary result of failing or refusing to sign up. Just as it would be wrong to assume that the Anglican Communion did not exist before the first Lambeth Conference, so it would be wrong to assume that failure to sign the Covenant meant that a Church ceased to be Anglican. The marks of Anglican identity go rather deeper. There is bound to be a lengthy period when Synodical bodies are considering the Covenant, prior to adoption. They will not be "less Anglican" during that period than they are now; and it remains to be seen in what sense they might become "more Anglican" if they decide to adopt it for themselves.

2. It might be expected that, as time goes on, stronger presumptions of mutual recognition and interchangeability of ministry and membership would arise between those Churches and Provinces that had signed up than amongst those that had chosen not to do so. That is not to say that the present arrangements for mutual recognition and interchangeability would be swept away by the introduction of the Covenant. What might emerge is a two (or more) tiered Communion, with some level of permeability between churches signed up to the Covenant, and those who are not.

END