Do we lack a document?  Do we lack an identity?  Or do we simply lack the courage to live by what we have already received, and teach it to our children.  We have forgotten the story of Nadab and Abihu from Leviticus when we ordain our priests.  We are willing to follow Paul or Apollos instead of Jesus Christ.  We are too much like Thomas, in the very presence of the Savior, saying “Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?”
A document may be nice, but don’t be fooled for a minute into thinking it will fix the mess we are in.  Instead we need to understand “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.”  I know who I am and who I belong to.  Now is the time to live by the covenant not written in human weakness, but by Jesus Christ and sealed by His blood.

Rather than indulging in speculation I would we wait to see what the Covenant looks like and whether it will bear the weight necessary for its task.

I think Noll’s analysis is right on.

We really do need to establish an Anglican Covenant so TEC can wipe its feet on it and get on the with really important things without the distraction of a creed to gum things up.

As an absolute minimum, any putative covenant, to be worth a tinker’s dam, absolutely must include the full intent—perhaps language as well—of GC’03 Resolution B-001. It is the sine qua non of a faithful path forward.

Otherwise we should all walk away from Rowan Williams and his over-fed, over-educated, hormone-focused rump of a white, western, weaselly excuse of a church and move ahead, as Anglicans, without them.

Dr. Noll is absolutely correct. The attempt to design a “covenant”, which includes those committed to the faith once delivered and those committed to a faith now experienced, is doomed. No matter how much you shake them, oil and water will not mix.

Further, the Anglican Covenant will be DOA, dead on arrival, for the same reason that the Anglican communion is coming apart today, namely interpretation.

Any final draft of an Anglican covenant, will be subject to interpretation by the participating members. Thus, it will not matter what the covenant says, it will mean whatever “we” say it means.

Given the radical and divergent interpretations of texts found in Holy Scripture - which are clear and concise - how can anyone hold an expectation that a covenant - which is full of ambiguous language - will result in a set of standards for doctrine and practice that will be adhered to in a consistent fashion.