The plan in brief, if it exists, describes a church composed of those provinces that sign on to an, as yet unwritten, "covenant." This covenant would stand as the constitution for a world wide church. The article envisions another set of provinces, presumably, ECUSA, ACCanada, AC Wales, AC Scotland, AC Japan, and perhaps Church of England itself, that would still be in some sort of communion with Canterbury without signing it. So, the communion would self-schism into the "ins" and the "attached." The covenant document would presumably, if the article is correct, incorporate some formal mechanism(s) to enforce what the report from the crypt (the "Windsor Report") said, "what effects all must be decided by all." That is, nothing in the document or practices of the signers could change unless all of them agreed.

How does this work in the real world?

People, even whole congregations, do not agree with the position of their bishop and dioceses do not always agree with their province, whatever issue may be the cause. So, will the covenant explicitly disavow the idea of provincial territory so that all provinces have world wide jurisdiction?

If the proposal means that there remains one Lambeth council, how will that work? For instance, will non-covenant provinces vote on changes to the covenant? Given the extreme hostility some African bishops express towards some ECUSA and ACCanada bishops, will there be one plenary or two sort-of-plenary meetings? Can anyone imagine a Eucahrist that will involve clergy from both groups celebrating and receiving together? Archbishop Akinola RAN from a room to avoid shaking Louie Crew's hand, will he exchange a sign of peace with bishop Ingram?

I consider it likely that the issue of lay presidency, may divide Australia internally and may cause another internationals split. It is easy to visualize a four node church: those who accept the US and Canadian moves and lay presidency, those who reject one but not the other and those who reject both. This, of course, is today, the possibility of new issues and new sub-divisions appears endless.

For "covenanted" provinces, does this structure mean that primate council or ACC or Lambeth votes have the force of canon? It is relevant to remember that only the Anglican Consultative Council hears from voting laity and clerics other than primates. Will conservative African provinces want to give up that much authority? If they don't, does the covenant have any meaning?

What of Canterbury? The archbishop is selected entirely by the Church of England and Her Majesty's government. If a new structure is to be centered on the archbishop, who would seem to be the primary link for the un--covenanted provinces, wont they want a say? If they do, and if the archbishop is the center of the entire structure, certainly the provinces that are signing the covenant will also demand a voice. A change in the selection process would be a change in foundation, (what Americans call, "constitutional") English law.

Moreover, what of Canterbury if the covenant comes to a General Synod that wont sign it? Do we then have the potentially illegal spectical of an archbishop who heads a communion in which his own province is a junior member? Is there anyone who thinks that archbishop Akinola will accept that?

A conservative might evaluate this idea in light of Machiavelli's observation, "delay is the deadliest form of denial." If the work on making a structure that all or at least most, can accept starts today, it will be Lambeth 2018 before anything happens. A decade or more of drafts, debates, discussions, and revisions, followed by a vote and then a ratification process in each province may be an optimistic timetable. Many provinces' General Synod or General Convention meetings are bi-annual affairs; many are less frequent, ECUSA meets this year and next in 2009.

If this is really the archbishop's staff and advisors best work, he needs to make some personnel decisions!

--Jim Beyer is a former Lutheran who came to the Episcopal church about 25 years ago. He holds a degree in business and makes his living as an analyst consultant. He and his family live southwest of Chicago, attend a parish that is probably best described as high & broad He has been a delegate to the convention of the diocese of Chicago. He serves as a vestry member, with special interest in our diocese's relationship with Renk.