I suggest that much of the motivation for their zeal is rooted in the myth of a unity that has never really existed amongst the churches whose roots are “Anglican,” i.e., churches emerging from the Church of England.

Evidence that this idealized unity is indeed myth is found in the fact that there is no such thing as a singular and distinct Anglican theology, or a singular Anglican ethos, common to all the independent and autocephalous churches of the Communion.

So the AC is simply a communion of members whose sole common commitment and ethos is that they belong, but they can believe and do whatever they want whenever they want?  The communion stands for nothing, believes in nothing, requires nothing and expects nothing?  Sounds a lot like the Mirror of Erised in Harry Potter.

#2…. Br. Michael: the larger piece is unfortunately marred by a kind of tortured internal confusion.  Actually, when I read that bit you quoted, and the surrounding paragraphs, I had a rare moment of pleasure and optimism (an experience I rarely have reading reappraiser rhetoric).  Finally, I thought, a reappraiser is going simply and cleanly define his terms, do so in a useful way, and then apply those definitions to the problem at hand.

If we look again at the bit you quoted, it looked like he was going to say something like: “the word ANGLICAN simply is an adjective for a national church which as a historic fact descended from the Church of England.  It does not mean anything else, for indeed there is no common theology binding these churches together (either now or in the last 100 years).”

Unfortunately he gets confused and later wants to say that a person’s (like a primate’s, or an archbishop like Duncan’s) thinking and behavior and attitude can be very UN-Anglican—which makes no sense if Anglican is a term which means only that they have a certain historical relationship to the C of E.

Personally I think the right thing is to encourage this guy, and ask him to go back to his desk and try again.  He was going in a very clear direction:
*  All “Anglican” reasonably means is a church that emerged from the C of E at some point in history. 
*  No common theology exists. 
*  Therefore it’s silly to try to create one. 
*  Therefore the key thing is for each Anglican church to do its own thing.

One of the things he’d conclude is that ACNA is indeed fully Anglican by his own definition and that ACNA should absolutely go and do its own thing.

But of course, as a TEC apparatchik, he can’t say that ACNA is just as authentically Anglican as TEC is.  The might lead down dangerous paths of thought, like amicable division of property and so on.

What relevance does this covenant, and the consuming process to drive it through, have to the wider world around us and to this church’s mission and ministry?

Jesus prayer in John 17, for starters. Perhaps Isaiah 53:6, although that may address the general tone of the essay and not speak directly to this question.

I’d be interested to hear what some more knowledgable people have to say about his thesis of CofE/Anglican history, that is, as the first poster notes, that Anglicanism stands for nothing.

The rest of the world does not care if Anglicans cannot play nicely with others who like to identify themselves as fellow Anglicans. What the world around us cares about is whether or not we care about the world around us   He must not interact with the world around him very much.  If we only had a $1 for every time we are asked how we can claim to be Christian and so ignore the Bible, our coffers would be overflowing.

Crazy non-sequitur arguement. 

Wizard of Oz:  “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, get back to mission, fulfill your baptismal convenant”.

Thanks for the offer of leadership though…

Covenant, what covenant? There is no covenant. The covenant that will emerge from the committee comprised mostly of TEClub stoolies is not worth the time to even read this silly essay.

Episcopal Church can and should set the pace and lead the way back to mission.

The problem is that TEC has forgotten what the mission is. 

Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit.-Matthew 15:14

Having been out of Parish work since the 1970’s (not by choice). When I returned in the late 80’s I found myself in a different Church and not one of my liking!  This guy’s arguments represent that different church.  My letters of orders read, “Priest in the One Holy Catholic Church” That is where I want to be!