Secondly, some of the criticisms seem to have more to do with perceptions that the critics have of some of the authors, reaching back into past history, rather than the text of CCE itself. The argument runs: "Since such-and-such are among those who are saying this, it must mean what they seem to have meant in the past". The Covenant is thus guilty by association.

Thirdly, along with major points of substance are quibbles and trivia which seem to arise out of a prevailing hermeneutic of suspicion. Suspicion is difficult to dispel - it is very hard to prove that you are not saying what a critic accuses you of implying.

We hope that people evaluating CCE will 'play the ball, not the person'. That is to say, examine carefully, in the light of scripture, the substance of the document and of the criticisms made of it, rather than focusing on those who penned them - authors or critics. The starting point for "A Covenant for the Church of England" is those who find themselves under pressure or isolation within their dioceses - currently in up to a dozen perhaps. Far from being a prelude to division, it is a serious attempt to preserve unity in unprecedentedly troubled situations and to seek an English solution to tensions in this country, while maintaining the priority of mission. Almost all those who have worked hard to conceive and draft this "Covenant" are themselves Anglican leaders either of networks or of local churches or of both. We are keen to keep the 'main thing' the main thing - that is mission and growth in the power of the gospel. The portrayal of us and our churches as conspiracy-theorists driven by suspicion and paranoia is at best a caricature and at worst blinkered, unfair and unhelpful.

A Fundamental Question

A major criticism made of CCE is that it is precipitate in anticipating the outcome of the Windsor Process. This raises a fundamental question about the nature of the divisions in the Communion regarding the issue of sexuality - the same issue where some parishes in this country are already out of fellowship with their diocesan bishops. The fundamental question is an issue of orthodoxy: whether the Bible and Anglican teaching countenance active homophile relationships, and the ordination of active gay clergy and bishops as leaders and teachers in the church. And if people believe the traditional Biblical view and accept the agreed teaching of the Lambeth Conference, can they in conscience be required to receive oversight from those who actively promote a contrary agenda in their exercise of authority and discipline? If not, then the assumption of the Covenant is that provision should be made for them to receive oversight from a bishop who is orthodox, in the sense of accepting the teaching of scripture and the Lambeth Conference on a first-order matter.

The issue of orthodoxy is critical and in some places urgent. In considering their response the CCE group asked for help from Archbishop Williams. Instead of being understanding of that response, some critics have sought to "take the covenant apart" as they put it. If there are those for whom the issue of orthodoxy, or indeed the other issues raised by CCE, are not pressing, we thank God. But let them please understand the needs of others, for example the clergypersons,male and female,who - after publication of the Covenant and its rationale - wrote: "From the front line in a UPA parish we are dealing with huge mission challenges and the opposition of a diocese that uses power-play and revisionism in a shocking way." For our own part, it was strongly felt that Archbishop Williams and bishops collectively should be made aware of such situations.

Beneath all the secondary arguments about ecclesiology and accusations of dualistic, congregational separatism, there is a major difference which has not yet been addressed by critics of the Covenant. For those who wrote the Covenant, the acceptance of active homosexual practice as authentic Christian discipleship raises a first-order issue because in the scriptures such practice is a sin from which people are called to repent and on which, like all sin, God's judgment lies. To treat it as if it were a second-order issue, is to suggest that it is literally a matter of indifference, like our forms of liturgy. Thus the pressure increases to suggest that while you yourself hold that homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian discipleship, you must allow that others hold that it is compatible, give them equal space in the church and allow them to call this practice holy and have it blessed.

The conviction behind the Covenant is that that would go against the supreme authority of scripture, redefine sin, and redefine the work of the Saviour. The two positions are quite simply incompatible. And it is clear which side Scripture takes, as Some Issues in Human Sexuality acknowledges. So when, in discussion, a leading clergy gay campaigner was asked: "If it could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that arsenokotai in scripture meant men having sex with men, and not male prostitutes, would you change your view and behaviour?" and answered 'no', the issue is not personal preference, but orthodoxy in teaching and practice. The signatories of the Covenant are not prepared for the comprehensiveness of the Church of England to be interpreted as allowing contradictory interpretations on a first-order issue of biblically rooted morality, and thus to be 'allowed' to remain as orthodox members while heterodox practice is allowed as well.

In reflecting on the controversy about CCE, therefore, it is important to focus on the clarity and the authority of scripture in this area, and its consequences for the acceptability of active homosexual practice. Already it seems that some who self-identify as evangelicals but regard the sexuality issue as a second-order issue are reluctant to be open on this matter, as they are aware of the traditional evangelical perspective and do not want to alienate evangelical opinion. Meanwhile, it is unfortunate that the focus of criticism is turned on matters that are truly secondary with regard to ecclesiological order.

A Flawed Process

Contrary to some opinions, the covenant was produced by people who do not rush into print at the slightest provocation. They have consulted carefully together for over a year and tried many ways in the past to voice their concerns through the usual channels, including seeking audiences with evangelical bishops, who have always been nervous of such discussions - perhaps not wanting to be seen to be a focus of dissent. On this occasion therefore the Covenant group went first to the Archbishop of Canterbury - only to be criticised for not telling all the other evangelical bishops beforehand. The critics cannot have it both ways! One way or another, the serious concerns within the evangelical constituency [and other parts of the church] need to be properly listened to, not marginalised or distorted.

A pastoral response to the Covenant would have been to talk first with those who produced it so as to understand why matters had come to such a serious pitch. Instead, the evangelical community has been treated to sharp critiques, some written from a position of power, and invited to treat the Covenant as a purely political statement rather than a serious attempt to wrestle with issues of doctrine and conscience.

Responsible leadership listens carefully to those who serve on the front lines. It was Richard Hooker who pointed out that it is a foolish bishop who disdains the advice of his presbyters. Those in the front line, with the outcome of the Windsor process uncertain, have issues to face how. They need to be heard, understood and supported. CCE recognises the profundity of some of these issues and offers a responsible and principled way of addressing them.

RESPONSE TO CRITIQUES

Some of the early responses to the CCE were produced before the additional material 'Questions that may be asked' was published. It was delayed at the request of Lambeth Palace. Had that material been published simultaneously with CCE as originally intended, some early misconceptions would have been dispelled. We therefore offer below a response to those initial criticisms which both draws on the Questions and addresses some additional points that were not anticipated by them.

Critique: What sort of document is CCE meant to be? Why is there not a fuller exposition of its theological foundations?

Response: The document is not intended to be a piece of systematic theology, nor does it claim to define what Anglicanism is. It simply sets out the shared foundational commitments of Anglicans Its theological basis is the scriptures and the Anglican formularies which classically have been a sufficient confession of faith for members of the Church of England.

CCE's purpose is to provide an analysis of the breakdown of fellowship with some leaders in the Church of England and the principles for seeking remedies to this critical situation. In the CofE as in the Anglican Communion, solving the crisis in the Communion will not just be a matter of producing theological statements that all can agree, important as those are. What is also needed is a procedure to address indiscipline and error, and the failure to live, work and teach according to the biblical witness.

CCE is therefore essentially a set of principles to guide a process for addressing the problems we face. It takes for granted much of the substance of theological argument which can be referenced in many works that demonstrate our faithful Anglican approach, but it does not prescribe the required procedures in detail.

Critique: Calling the document a covenant is inappropriate, given that it focuses on existing disagreements, and confusing, given the proposed Windsor Covenant for the Anglican Communion.

Response: The term 'covenant' is used in a variety of ways and in a number of contexts, including discussions with ecumenical partners but, as one critic has said: "A covenant is normally an agreement between two or more people bringing them together for some purpose." That is exactly the sense in which the term Covenant was used for CCE: it expresses agreement and mutual support across a wide coalition based on fundamental biblical and theological agreement.

Critique: Is it not the case that the covenant is designed particularly for those who cannot accept the ordination of women as presbyters or bishops?

Response: Among its drafters and signers are those who are strongly in favour of both.

Critique: The Covenant is separatist.

Response: On the contrary, we are not separating. The covenant contains a strong and unambiguous commitment to the Church of England as she now is, based on the scriptures and the historic formularies. Its object is to enable those who are so committed to exercise their vocation, lay and ordained, through the mission and ministry of the Church of England.

Critique: The Windsor Process is reaching its critical moment. Lambeth invitations are expected within the year. Won't CCE damage that process?

Response: We do not believe that the Covenant will damage the Windsor Process at all. CCE is explicitly for the Church of England. We are deeply committed to support those who are working for a biblical, theologically orthodox and Spirit-driven transformation of both the C of E and the Anglican Communion.

Whilst we certainly want to work together in support of that goal, the following recent events do not encourage optimism about the direction of the communion's life:

In England

* Jeffrey John almost became Bishop of Reading and has now become Dean of St Albans, where he uses his position to promote his views through books in the Cathedral bookshop; * the House of Bishops have produced guidelines on Civil Partnerships, which some of their own number now agree are unacceptable. * the Bishop of Southwark has appeared to suggest that acceptance of active gay clergy will come inevitably; * According to Changing Attitude, 50 gay priests have entered civil partnerships; * several bishops of the Church of England have become patrons of Gay Campaigning Groups which support unbiblical lifestyles.

In the wider Communion

* a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship has been consecrated as Bishop; * Katharine Jefferts Schori, who has taken forward the blessing of same-sex unions as official diocesan policy, has become Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church; * The Primate of the Church in Wales hailed "Gays and the Future of Anglicanism" as a better treatment of the issue than Lambeth 1.10, and the Dean of Bangor has forbidden the former Archbishop of Canterbury from preaching in his cathedral; * The Scottish Bishops on 4th March 2004, stated: "The Scottish Episcopal Church has never regarded the fact that someone was in a close relationship with a member of the same sex as in itself constituting a bar to the exercise of an ordained ministry. Indeed, the Windsor Report itself in suggesting that a moratorium be placed on such persons being consecrated bishops, itself acknowledges the existence of many such relationships within the Church." * the Canadian General Synod has pronounced same-sex relations to be holy, and active homophile clergy have been ordained; * the Bishop of Dunedin ordained a non-celibate homosexual as a deacon and the Bishop of Auckland licensed a priest previously suspended for having left his family to enter into a same-sex relationship. * In response to complaints from evangelicals, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in New Zealand said that there would be further conversation, committees and consultation; * some of the Porvoo Churches, with which we are in communion, have moved ahead on the ordination, consecration and blessing of those in same-sex relationships, but to this the Church of England has made no response.

Critique: Is this the best moment to raise these issues? Now is the time for patience, for holding on, standing firm on the theological and ecclesiological high-ground of the Windsor Report.

Response: It is precisely because there is no presenting crisis in England that the time is right to consider the position we have already reached, concerning which there are deep concerns yet to be addressed, and to initiate a process of dealing with further problems just around the corner.

The Church of England needs to be prepared to handle the different and potentially powerful reactions to the Primates' Meeting in February. The fracture in North America or between North America and others will not pass the Church of England by. If Communion is finally broken by some with The Episcopal Church, there will be those in the Church of England who will continue publicly to express their strong support for TEC. This will put many parishes and clergy who are in their charge in impossible situations.

There is already a sustained push for advancing a liberal agenda on sexuality in the Church of England. The Windsor Report and its accompanying Panel of Reference have not managed to stem this tide nationally, any more than globally.

Critique: Why is this different from what has happened before? Faulty views of revelation, coupled with false teaching, have been around in the CofE for many generations and yet the Church has survived.

Response: CCE shows that large numbers of evangelical Anglicans have had enough of such tolerance of error and their own tendency to ignore the structures of the church. They are seeking to take the wider church seriously. By asking for proper provision they are asking for the compliment to be returned.

Moreover, the 'what's new about this?' argument suggests that the faithful orthodox will live with the innovations and lack of discipline that have already been put in place just as their forbears lived with false teaching characteristic of the CofE for generations. This is like saying to a burglar, "Carry on with the burglary, because after all it is something you have always done in the past, and we have got used to it."

In addition, there is a significant difference from the past issue of "dodgy bishops", namely that their teaching and practice were never endorsed officially by the instruments of the Church of England. The unacceptable guidelines by the House of Bishops on Civil Partnerships, however, are the official practice of the House of Bishops; and even they are flouted with no attempt at Episcopal discipline, and paraded as such by Changing Attitude of which two diocesan bishops are patrons. And the teaching and practice of the Church of England on marriage was changed by Government Decree, as pointed out by the Bishop of Chichester in Synod Question Time in February 2006. Civil partnerships must now be treated legally as an impediment to marriage, even though the Church does not recognize this to be the case.

In time past, individual bishops who, for example, expressed their disagreement with first-order doctrines such as that of the resurrection were not part of a global movement that was trying to change society's understanding of the whole nature of sexuality and marriage. Neither was their position formally endorsed by the policy of the House of Bishops.

Indeed the critique is disturbingly complacent about the impact of 'dodgy bishops'. Compare its tone with this concern from one pastor:

"Picture visiting with a grieving young family after a local diocesan scholar, employed at a local seminary, who is strongly supported by the diocesan bishop, has published a Christmas article in the diocesan paper denying the virgin birth and the myth of the magi, thereby undermining the fragile faith of those hurting parishioners who are clinging to God with a gossamer thread after the death of a child whose Christmas gifts they had not long purchased. Attempts to offer meaningful pastoral support to God's hurting people has often been totally undermined by the very Church from which we serve."

The Church Survey Report of 14,000 people in the UK in 2005 demonstrated that they believed that people had given up on the Church because the leaders no longer knew what they believed. Read here

Critique: CCE wants bishops to discipline those with whom they disagree, but wants to be free of Episcopal jurisdiction in all other respects, witness the use of irregular liturgical practices.

Response: Does the critic think that the current issues of flouting direct biblical teaching and the agreed teaching of the Anglican Communion is on a par with using precise forms of Common Worship? It is possible that he does, if he regards both as matters that are secondary and indifferent. This would explain putting these matters on the same level!

The key to effective leadership is being able to judge where there is serious indiscipline and being prepared to tackle it. The idea that gross persistent immorality presented as holy living is merely on a level of "disagreement" and on a par with not using the full liturgy is frankly bizarre. The criticism is a peculiar 'thin end of the wedge' argument - if you allow plurality in the matter of liturgy and robes, you will allow it all over the place next. Meanwhile there is a danger that inappropriate plurality is to be allowed in areas of human sexuality, while others are hauled over the coals for failing to wear a surplice!

The framers of the CCE are not creating new facts on the ground but are suggesting ways of dealing with problems that have actually arisen in a legally appropriate way. If the covenant is successful, and provision is made for these situations, then people will not be forced to take the route of principled irregularity.

Critique: The problem is basically American. This is where we should be concentrating.

Response: When the Episcopal Church was asked to withdraw from Anglican Instruments of Unity at the Primates Meeting in 2005, six English Bishops declared in a letter to The Times, they were in full fellowship with ECUSA. The problem is within the Church of England too. In 2000, at Tufts University in the USA, the Christian Union (Inter-Varsity Group) were derecognized because of their supposed lack of inclusion. In 2006 this same charge and approach was brought against Christian Unions in the UK.

Critique: The doctrine and the teaching of the CofE has not changed.

Response: The doctrine of the Church of England has not changed. And it never does - till it does. It is the last thing to change officially until, like the law, it is changed to catch up with current practice, as is happening over divorce and remarriage in Church. The first step is that the facts on the ground are changed, such as happened when the CofE bishops agreed to Government changes in the Civil Partnerships legislation and how it applies to the church and clergy. The official change, which the critique says has not occurred, is simply the very last change to occur, and by then opposition has collapsed.

But is there even a common ground, as yet unchanged, of doctrine in the CofE to change? No. Common ground is not only what we formally affirm as belief, but what we apply in ethical decision making. Disputes remain unresolved over the ordination of practising homosexual clergy and their appointment to senior positions, over bishops being patrons of organisations committed to that end, over collusion with the government in changing the CofE's doctrine and practice of marriage.

Giving the impression that nothing is wrong at the moment and that Church of England teaching remains unbreached is part of the strategy of those bringing these innovations. The strategy of the establishment is that evangelicals should live with all this. Those who do are rewarded. Continued silence is taken as consent.

Culturally, however, the train has left the station. We are seeking to keep the church growing and strong to continue to deal with the challenges of the culture, currently in relation to the SORs and other challenges to freedom of speech and belief from the liberal agenda on human sexuality issues. For that, we need oversight that takes the bible and the teachings of the Church seriously.

Critique: Most of the places where there is growth and new life are churches which preach the true and lively gospel of Jesus Christ, thus demonstrating the health of the Church.

Response: This is almost precisely the point we are making, but its implications must be taken more seriously!

The local church is the key. This is where the action takes place. Practical, day to day, mission in the Church of England is not carried out by the diocese and even less by the province as a whole. The parishes do mission and they produce ministers of the church. What the diocese can and should do is provide not only the environment but the right kind of support for the local church. We are trying to address the situation where, instead of being provided with the right kind of support, the local church is undermined.

An adequate theology of the church must give due prominence to the significance of the concrete life and rights of each local church. But parishes are not sufficient unto themselves. CCE is needed to provide a basic provision of the right kind of fellowship with oversight for local churches so that they do not become unsuitably congregationalist.

Hardly anyone would agree that the structures and systems of the CofE are entirely appropriate for mission today. We need a process to change them. Large numbers of the present Episcopal leadership are hardly the missionary bishops envisaged in the Lambeth Report of 1998. The system does not allow them to be. The corporate world has mechanisms to deal with non performing leaders and more particularly leaders who have become a liability. The church has none. The appointment of leaders in the CofE is unconnected with the stake holders.

One commentator on the role of bishops in the Church of England writes:

"The great need is not for bishops to find time to do more visits or to give lectures or even to preach, but for them to exercise leadership in such a way that the section of the church under their oversight achieves its mission goals. Their situation is directly comparable to that of a general, whose role is not to pick up a gun and charge the enemy, but to direct the battle. Doubtless this may be helped in the bishop's case by visiting, lecturing and preaching, just as a good general will find time to visit his frontline troops, win their confidence and explain to them his strategy. But the means by which the bishop will discharge his duties effectively is primarily by finding the resources for the church to achieve its calling, and by directing them to that end." No particular place to go - the role of Bishops in the Church of England Read here

History shows that the church will die without a wholehearted commitment to biblically orthodox doctrine, ethics and mission. People will die in their sins if we do not tell them of the forgiveness made available only in Jesus. The moral and spiritual revisionists have declared war on the orthodox. Unless we stand up for the truth, and are prepared to do so with some who will disagree with us on secondary issues, complacency will kill us all.

Critique. Who do the signatories represent? Is this a covenant for all, or only for certain conservative groups?

Response: The covenant begins with an open invitation to people to join those who have presented and signed it. No one is being excluded. Anyone is welcome to join and help shape future discussions who are willing to sign up to its deeply felt concern and commitment to the Anglican formularies and affirmation of biblical theology, mission and commitment to evangelism in whatever wing or stream of the church they place themselves.

Not everyone who could have been consulted prior to its launch could be consulted. The consultation process was foreshortened by leaks. The signatories are typical of many. Some groupings are not present because they are not networks of churches. Other evangelical Anglican groupings are not present either. The invitation remains for people to express their support.

Critique:The authors are claiming to be genuine Anglicans, but are not saying what their distinctives are, and so we are left to fill in the blanks. Are the signatories seeking to impose their own narrow and distinctive view of church order and presenting it as the genuine Anglican position?

Response: No, the signatories are fully committed as they say to the understanding of the Church of England as "part of the one holy, catholic and apostolic church who share with others throughout the world a commitment to the biblical truths on which the Anglican Communion is based." This includes, as they go on to infer, the doctrine and practice as set out in the Church of England formularies, including episcopacy. Far from standing for a sub-branch within classical evangelicalism, they want to hold hands with a wide coalition of orthodox Anglicans beyond evangelicalism, evangelical, catholic and charismatic. Their commitment includes a commitment to episcopacy, unless this is interpreted as an exclusively geographical concept.

The critique is setting up a straw person here as elsewhere in the critique, based on an argument from silence.

Critique: The authors are, in other words, claiming the high moral ground of 'we are the genuine Anglicans', while surreptitiously refusing to say what their real distinctives are - in reality, a sub-branch within classic evangelicalism, heavily dependent on some highly contestable readings of scripture and tradition, and consciously excluding many others who use the label 'evangelical' with an equal right and good conscience. They seem to lack appreciation of the visible Church and the integrity of its ministry.

Response: The Covenant refers to no such distinctives. It would be helpful to know what distinctives are in mind here. The view of the ordering of the church is according to the ordering of the Church of England as set out in its formularies. If the formularies of the Church of England are not adequate as a statement of Christian identity, that is a matter to be taken up with the Church of England bishops and synods.

Critique: This latter point is immediately relevant to the statement 'this is what guarantees our fellowship with Anglicans historically and globally.' Not so. What guarantees our fellowship with one another through space and time is Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the communion with the Father which we thus share, 1 John 1:3.

Response: This guarantees our fellowship with all Christians, Pentecostals, Roman Catholics and Seventh Day Adventists. This argument confuses our identity as Christians and our identity as Anglicans. Anglicanism imposes certain structural arrangements, the implications of which the Covenant seeks to address.

Secondly, the quotation from 1 John 1 needs to be read in its context which makes clear that fellowship is conditional. The chapter continues by insisting that our communion or fellowship with the Father and the Son is manifested by how we behave and what we believe. Thus "If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie, and do not practice the truth. If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin". Vs 6-8.

Critique: Does the commitment to spreading the unchanging gospel of Jesus Christ mean continuing to do what we did 50 years ago?

Response: Hardly. The list of signatories includes many who have been prominent in leading innovative and productive gospel work including liturgical renewal, theological education, healing ministry, mission and evangelism at home and abroad. It is strange that others have criticised the Covenant for precisely the opposite reason, that its signatories are frustrated, innovative and impatient church planters.

Some of the critiques are quibbles, and fail to distinguish the trivial from the substantial. Critiques of what might lie behind the use of individuals, when it is clear that the corporate nature of Christian belief and fellowship is immediately mentioned in the Body of Christ; critique of enrolling members into the Body of Christ, when to speak of enrolling members into a club in no way suggests that they are members before they are enrolled; critique of the common colloquial usage of heaven when it is clear that commitment to the bodily resurrection of Jesus implies the new heaven and new earth. Readers of Holy Scripture learn to discern and distinguish different types of literature and literary expression. There is a suspicion running through these quibbles that a dualistic Gnostic world-denying approach to Christian discipleship is being presented in the Covenant. Again the list of signatories includes those who have been prominent in ministries of development, among the poor, prison ministry, ministry in Urban Priority Areas, and developing a wholistic theology to address these.

Critique: Are the authors planning schism, and doing so through a flawed doctrine of the church?

Response: No. As already indicated the authors share and stand by the doctrine of the church and her mission as set out in the canons and in the preface to the declaration of assent. On the relative importance of the catholic church and the catholic faith, Paul Avis's words on the Reformed Episcopate in The Church in the Reformers should be weighed carefully: "For the Reformers, and here the English divines are merely representative - universality is only equivalent to catholicity when it is joined with truth." The Church in the Theology of the Reformers p 130.

We note that schism is produced by those who promote false teaching or advocate a lifestyle that is incompatible with Christian discipleship. It is a huge and unwarranted leap to move from the assertion that "it is departure from this common faith that is responsible for causing schism" to the assertion that authors of such a statement are planning schism. This is like saying that those who note that "drink driving causes road accidents" are planning to go on a drink driving spree to cause a road accident.

Critique: The covenant lacks an Anglican ecclesiology, as it lacks an appreciation of the visible Church and the integrity of its ministry.

Response: It does not lack an ecclesiology. It clearly expresses what the Church of England has espoused as an ecclesiology. CCE expresses a commitment to the Anglican formularies and a strong affirmation of biblical theology, mission and commitment to evangelism. The CCE understands the Church of England as "part of the one holy, Catholic and apostolic church who share with others throughout the world a commitment to the biblical truths on which the Anglican Communion is based". This includes the doctrine and practice of the Church of England, including episcopacy, as set out in the Church of England formularies. The covenant stands by the doctrine of the church and her mission as set out in the canons and in the preface to the declaration of assent. The Church of England asks no less and no more of her members.

In the Reformed tradition of the Church of England, with the Scriptures as supreme, the gospel and truth are more important than church polity, and this means that first order issues have to be dealt with as they were at the Reformation. In the Donatist Controversy, Augustine himself advised that if people do not have an orthodox bishop, they should seek one.

If polity and unity are more important than truth which is not being practised by the church, ecclesiology is being made more important than the gospel and than gospel related issues. We must be careful that we have not subtly adopted an ecclesiology that makes everything in the Church derive from the office of the bishop.

Critique: Is this a recipe for a free for all in which church clones can be planted anywhere and yet claim to be Anglican?

Response: No. The intention is the opposite, to ensure that Anglican churches, new or well established can benefit from appropriate Episcopal oversight. The current reality is that there are new congregations of believers emerging in mission situations which are unable to receive Episcopal oversight for one reason or another. We want this to be addressed.

Further, the claim that gospel-growth means 'the spread of our particular type of church' needs to be discussed by those who actually engage in church planting. Those who do plant churches know how to do it, are learning lessons as they do it, and need wisdom advice and encouragement. When parents have children, those children both by nature and nurture share similar DNA and characteristics with their parents. What is so strange or wrong about that? What sort of churches should those who plant churches not plant, or be expected to plant? What is gospel growth if it is not the increase of the people of God in communities of faith? Or are we being encouraged to think of the mission of the Church of England solely in chaplaincy terms, or in terms of presence and influence alone? Some clear answers are needed here. Critique. Does the local church have any role in authorizing new leaders? Not in Anglican polity. Response The local church is vital in authorizing new leaders. Would a Bishop appoint a new curate in a parish overriding the will of the congregation and the incumbent? What article 23 says is that a person cannot ordain himself. What the Covenant says, however, in no way excludes the bishop from this procedure.

Critique: Is this a recipe for congregationalism?

Response: The local church is where the action takes place. An adequate theology of the church must give due prominence to the significance of the concrete life and rights of each local church. The rights of parishes are in fact protected in the law of the land.

The PCC has certain statutory rights derived from Parliament.

These include: - the church building - property belonging to the parish - conduct of the financial affairs of the church - rights regarding women priests - rights regarding church appointments - various miscellaneous rights - to give consent to the incumbent dismissing the organist, to make representations to the bishop on any matter concerning the welfare of the church, to be consulted regarding proposed parish schemes, to be a party to a church sharing agreement - to object to the sale or pulling down of a residence belonging to the benefice or the erection of a new one - to be heard on certain issues arising during the vacancy in the benefice or the proposed transfer of the right to patronage

CCE does not deny the role of the wider Church, rather it explicitly affirms this. What CCE does say is that the local congregation is the initial and key seed-bed of the process. That is, it is the well spring from which the whole process starts, but the process is not limited to the local congregation. Parishes are not sufficient unto themselves. CCE is needed to provide a basic provision of the right kind of fellowship with oversight for local churches so that they do not become unsuitably congregationalist.

What appears to be happening here is that some Bishops are wanting to hold on to power that is in some cases being exercised without proper account. Such Bishops are neither Catholic nor Protestant. They refuse to abide by the teaching of the Catholic Church and the collegiality of Lambeth decisions, and at the same time ride rough shod over the rights of parishes by refusing to acknowledge their right to principled objection by making provision for orthodox oversight. CCE is calling such power to account. In some places where the power of bishops is being used unreasonably to prevent ordination - to the detriment of the church's ministry - we are asking for an Episcopal alternative to be provided within the Church of England. This in our view is a better way than having to resort to irregular ordinations.

Critique: CCE makes unbiblical threats about withholding money.

Response: We believe that parishes should not only take greater responsibility for the self-sustaining support of their own ministry, but should also be encouraged to a greater generosity towards churches, projects and mission initiatives at home and abroad with which they can be in full sympathy. This is already recognised and implemented in many dioceses in this country, and even more widely in the Anglican Communion. A less centralised tax system than that which perpetuates a dependency culture will multiply resources, strengthen partnership, liberate generosity and encourage mission. There is widespread recognition of the problems generated by the current arrangements for collecting diocesan quota and parish share. Trust is the issue. The key question in fund raising is "Who is asking for the money?" When you receive appeals you look for the name which is attached. In some situations, the fact that the request comes from the diocese or the bishop is dissuading people from giving because of the agenda that they know the diocese and bishop is taking forward.

There is no question of encouraging arrogant self-service. Many of the churches in this constituency –some of which are in poor areas - are thinking of their responsibility to the poorer churches, but are being criticised for suggesting we support the poor churches in the Global South. We note that some in the CofE are already advocating that dioceses should only give to the national church for causes of which they approve.

Would Paul have encouraged the members of his churches to donate funds to support those who have departed from the faith or who are upsetting the faith of some?

Finally, it is clear that there is already a shift taking place within some parts of Evangelical Anglicanism towards regarding human sexuality as a 'second-order' issue where we can simply 'agree to disagree' over whether same-sex activity is right in certain circumstances or not.

Rowan Williams asked in response to the St Andrew's Day Statement for some indication as to how a homosexually inclined person would show Christ to the world. This is a fair question, but cannot be answered in a way that implies that sexual behaviour is irrelevant to the call of the gospel. Those who argue that gay practice can or should be part of a gay person's response to the gospel are redefining sin: they are saying that what the Bible defines as sin does not apply to everyone any more. That is what makes this a first order issue: it concerns the significance of our redemption in Christ. The sin we have to repent of, the sin Christ died for, and the nature of what he redeems us from and to are indeed first order issues.

We are currently faced with attempts, in the UK and overseas, to enforce an unprincipled comprehensiveness which reduces a first order matter such as fundamental Christian teaching on sexual morality and therefore what is counted as sinful or holy to merely one opinion among others. This means that the debate itself is being moved from being about whether same-sex activity is right or wrong to being about whether we can live together in a church where some believe it is and some believe it isn't.

This calls into question the entire teaching office of the church. It has been repeatedly asserted that Scripture teaches positively that there is one right and proper context for the expression of human sexuality, namely in lifelong covenanted marriage between one man and one woman, and negatively that sexual activity between people of the same gender is wrong. Once it is accepted that Christians may differ on this point, the church can no longer teach its present position as truth in itself, but can only assert as a truth that 'some hold this, whilst others hold to the contrary'.

From the point at which this is conceded, bishops will not be able to exercise any further teaching oversight or pastoral discipline regarding the two positions. We must remember the importance for the spread of the Gospel and the building up of the Church which the New Testament attaches to sound teaching and holiness of life amongst church leaders- for example in Titus 1 and 2.

The final outcome of the debate on whether same-sex activity is right or wrong will therefore no longer be relevant since the church will already have changed irrevocably. This is our answer to the question 'Why this, why now?'

---Paul Perkin and Chris Sugden on behalf of the Covenant for the Church of England Steering Group.